Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

NEW WRIT

For Merthyr Tydvil, in the room of Stephen Owen Davies, Esquire, deceased.—[Mr. Mellish.]

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND INDUSTRY

Fuel Prices Announcement (Press Publication)

Mr. Arthur Lewis: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will cause an investigation to be made to ascertain how and in what way Mr. Roland Cribben, the business correspondent of the Daily Telegraph, was able to publish in that paper on the morning of Friday, 3rd March, 1972, full details of the rise in fuel prices etc., as contained in his statement made to the House of Commons on Monday, 6th March, 1972.

The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. John Davies): No, Sir.

Mr. Lewis: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain that answer? Is he aware that the full details of his intended statement on the Monday were published in the Daily Telegraph on the Friday? That could not have been intelligent anticipation because precisely what the Minister said on the Monday was recorded in that newspaper. Is the Secretary of State aware that it is typical of all information emanating from the Government for the Press to be tipped off long before even Parliament knows what is happening?

Mr. Davies: I disagree with that analysis of the situation. There were many speculations by different sections of the

Press, one of which may have got nearer the mark than the others.

Air Traffic Facilities (Hampshire and Sussex)

Mr. Judd: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will call a round table conference of all concerned to discuss the rational, economic and safe development of comprehensive airport and air traffic control facilities to serve the South Hampshire and West Sussex areas.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Anthony Grant): No, Sir. I do not think this is necessary. The provision of aerodrome facilities for this area is already being considered by the local authorities concerned in the South Hampshire Plan Advisory Committee, and the Department is advising the Committee on civil aviation matters.

Mr. Judd: In view of the rapid expansion of population and the general development of this area, has not the time come for a co-ordinated approach, and will the Government take the initiative to bring this about?

Mr. Grant: If the hon. Gentleman is referring to a co-ordinated approach in his area, I believe that this is now taking place. If he is referring to a national co-ordinated approach, the Civil Aviation Authority, which comes into operation at the end of this month, will undoubtedly be considering this issue.

Coal Industry

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the progress made towards full production in the mining industry following the recent strike.

Mr. John Davies: I would refer the hon. Member to my hon. Friend's reply of 13th March to the hon. Member for Dudley (Dr. Gilbert).—[Vol. 833, c. 5.]

Mr. Hamilton: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that normal production in the coal industry was well on the way at a far faster pace than was anticipated both by the Government and the National Coal Board? Does he accept that this seems to lend credence to the view that


the Government and the N.C.B. consciously and deliberately exaggerated the effects of the coal miners' strike in an effort to scare the public and the miners into submission even before the Wilberforce Committee was set up?

Mr. Davies: No, that was not the case. I am sure that the country is happy that the resumption of production in the mines turned out to be better than both the Government and the N.C.B. had anticipated. This was largely due to the strenuous efforts of management and officials in preparing for the return to work.

Mr. Tom Boardman: Is it not inevitable that the consequences of the strike will be reduced demand for coal and reduced employment for miners?

Mr. Davies: This is a matter of great importance to me and I am addressing myself to it now in the form of a major study of the industry.

Mr. Harold Lever: Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that whatever arguments may be adduced about the miners' picketing of coal stocks on the ground, it was the fact that those stocks were on the ground that, when the strike was settled, prevented the Government's ruinous gamble from being pursued to the point when the industry would have been put out of action for several months after the settlement?

Mr. Davies: From the industry's point of view, the interruption caused by the strike was very damaging in any case; but the way in which coal stocks from the pitheads were moved in, particularly to the generating boards, was indeed remarkable

Mr. Grylls: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will issue a general direction to the National Coal Board to accelerate the closure of uneconomic coal mines.

Mr. John Davies: No, Sir. This is a matter for the board in discharging its statutory responsibilities.

Mr. Grylls: Is it not necessary to have a crash programme for the retraining of miners in uneconomic pits? Would not that ensure that those working in economic pits would have a secure and very good future?

Mr. Davies: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment has published a Green Paper on the subject of the development of training facilities generally, and this may be of help in the event of there being any redundancies.

Mr. Ewing: Will the Secretary of State say how many mines would be closed in the constituency of the hon. Member for Chertsey (Mr. Grylls)?

Mr. Davies: I have had no proposals for closures of mines from the National Coal Board following the miners' strike.

Mr. Kaufman: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if the European Communities Bill is passed he will no longer have any power to give general directions to the National Coal Board? Is he further aware that this would deprive the House of Commons of the device whereby it is enabled to ask him detailed questions about the National Coal Board, so that the coal industry is answerable to the House? Will he therefore try to find some other device which will continue his answerability on these matters?

Mr. Davies: It seems that hon. Members find many devices of their own for raising matters relating to the National Coal Board.

Shipbuilding (Assistance)

Mr. Sheldon: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a further statement on Government aid to the shipbuilding industry.

Mr. John Davies: I expect to make an announcement shortly.

Mr. Sheldon: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that it needs to come very quickly, because there is the question of costings that are being carried out by shipbuilders competing with Govan Shipbuilders and, because of this they are unable to quote for orders which it would be in this country's interest for them to obtain? When will the right hon. Gentleman make a statement about how these subsidies, to which he has only recently become attached, will become rational and comprehensible?

Mr. Davies: The hon. Gentleman would do better to wait for my announcement. I am very much aware of his


first point about the problems of competition in the industry arising from the proposal for Govan Shipbuilders Ltd.

Mr. Edward Taylor: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the age and inadequacy of machinery and cranage in the yards is one of our biggest problems? Will his statement take this into account in encouraging investment? Will he confirm that he regards the shipbuilding industry as a growth industry and not as one destined for eventual contraction?

Mr. Davies: On the first point, I am conscious of the fact that there has been a manifest lack of investment in the industry over a period of time. This will need reconstituting. I agree that the shipbuilding industry is a growth industry with very considerable prospects.

Mr. Benn: Has the right hon. Gentleman yet approved the sum of £12 million, or whatever it is, for the Marathon takeover of the Clydebank yard? Will the new legislation deal only with Govan Shipbuilders and Clydebank, or will it also deal with the shipbuilding industry and cater for the large subsidies now confidently expected?

Mr. Davies: The right hon. Gentleman would do well to await my announcement on all these matters.

Package Tours

Mr. Cronin: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will take further steps to regulate package tours to obtain higher standards of safety and comfort for the holiday-makers concerned.

Mr. Anthony Grant: No, Sir. I do not think those factors require additional legislative measures.

Mr. Cronin: While the majority of package tours are organised efficiently, is there not a small minority in which the holiday-makers suffer disappointment, discomfort and inconvenience and receive poor value for money? Should not the hon. Gentleman take steps to protect their interests?

Mr. Grant: The hon. Gentleman is quite right in saying that a small minority fall below the standards one expects. But the Civil Aviation (Air Travel Organisers' Licensing) Regulations, 1972, just intro-

duced, will enable civil aviation to safeguard the public by requiring the organisers to be fit and proper persons and to have adequate resources and arrangements.

Mr. McCrindle: The safety record of the British charter companies and tour operators is second to none.

Mr. Russell Kerr: Rubbish.

Mr. McCrindle: Concerning comfort, is not the considerable competition prevailing in the industry today a far better guarantee to the consumer than any intervention from the Department?

Mr. Grant: I think that I can agree with my hon. Friend on both those points.

Mr. Mason: I recognise that the travel trade is covered now by the Trade Descriptions Act, and that the Association of British Travel Agents has set up a safety fund and arbitration body with a view to covering its mistakes, but is the hon. Gentleman aware that if there is any major failure this season and numerous holiday-makers are disappointed, great pressure will be brought to bear on the Government to introduce legislation to register all travel trade operators with a view to withdrawing their licences, if necessary?

Mr. Grant: Yes, I understand that entirely. But I welcome the A.B.T.A. initiative. It would be wise to see how it works out.

Power Stations

Sir F. Bennett: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has, in order to relieve coal miners of dirty, dangerous and difficult work, to expand and accelerate the conversion of presently coal-fired electricity generating stations to natural gas, oil and nuclear power.

Mr. John Davies: None, Sir, but I keep the question of basic fuel supply for electricity generation under constant review.

Sir F. Bennett: Does my right hon. Friend recall that only a very short time ago Lord Robens, who really ought to know, forecast that as a result of the strike 15,000—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."]—I am not reading; that is why I did not give the right figure—50,000 miners' jobs would be put in peril? Does


my right hon. Friend take into account in his calculations the recent large find of oil and natural gas off the Welsh coast? Does he consider that these facts, put together, require the Government to undertake a complete reappraisal of the sources of power generation in the next decade?

Mr. Davies: I have seen Lord Robens' conjecture about employment in the mines. I realise that the various important issues that have arisen call once again for a review of the whole question of fuel and energy supply. This is being undertaken now. I look forward to taking into consideration the matters mentioned by my hon. Friend

Mr. Harold Lever: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that if we are to relieve coal miners of dirty, dangerous and difficult work it is necessary simultaneously to provide them with the opportunity of engaging in clean, safe and easy work? Until that point, will he regard Questions phrased as this one is as a disreputable way of seeking to make reputable vengeful and ruinous action upon our mining workers?

Mr. Davies: I am clear in my own mind that the whole issue of energy supply raises matters of great interest to both sides of the House. I try to keep a level keel on this matter, as I hope the right hon. Gentleman does.

Sir G. Nabarro: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will take advantage of the lower cost of coal-fired power stations, having regard to the fact that the costs of nuclear stations range from Berkeley at 1·27 old pence per unit to Wylfa at an estimated 0·67 old pence per unit, compared with typical coal-fired stations' costs at Cottam and Drax of 0·53d. and 0·56d., respectively; and if he will make a statement on his future plans.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): The figures quoted relate to power stations already completed or under construction whereas the choice of fuels for new power stations rests on their estimated cost six to 30 years ahead.

Sir G. Nabarro: That is exactly why I want a White Paper. Does my hon. Friend recognise that many of us have

a deep interest in the matter, that it is indisputable that in the past 10 years the coal industry has been run down too far and too fast and that many of us want to see this position reversed during the forthcoming years, notably in connection with power station generation?

Mr. Ridley: The last White Paper in 1967 postulated a rundown in the coal industry. The C.E.G.B. advises me that at present oil-fired generation is on average cheaper than coal-fired generation. But all these factors will be taken into account in my right hon. Friend's review.

Mr. Harper: Since nationalisation nearly 500,000 men in the coalmining industry have been relieved of their difficult, dirty and dangerous work. In view of the Minister's reply to his hon. Friend that the coal-fired power stations are the cheapest, will he give further confidence to the coal industry by keeping open all the pits that it is possible to keep open?

Mr. Ridley: While my hon. Friend may be right in saying that coal is cheaper than nuclear power, in the C.E.G.B.'s opinion oil is cheaper than coal at present, even bearing the tax. We must await my right hon. Friend's decisions on these matters.

Mr. Rost: Will the Government resist the temptation to allow the C.E.G.B. to burn gas, at least until a more efficient method of burning it has been devised?

Mr. Ridley: This is a matter we must consider very carefully, because it has wide implications for fuel policy as a whole.

Mr. Harold Lever: Will the Minister study and bear in mind, when comparing necessarily notional cost estimates of the different fuels over a long-term future, the contrast between the estimates made by the nuclear industry for electricity generation and the actual outturn?

Mr. Ridley: I advise the right hon. Gentleman to read his own Government's fuel White Paper, in which all those calculations were made with singular lack of success.

Hovercraft Industry

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what Government financial assistance is at present given to the hovercraft industry;


and if he will make a statement on the future of this industry.

The Minister for Aerospace (Mr. Frederick Corfield): Payments to the industry in this financial year amount to approximately £1·3 million. Over the next two years I intend to place further contracts worth £1·5 million with the industry, for the development and improvement of existing craft. This expenditure will be reinforced by another £500,000 to be spent within Government Departments. I have made it clear that by the end of this period I expect the industry to be entirely self-supporting. There are encouraging signs that this will be so; and in this connection I should like to congratulate the British Hovercraft Corporation, Vosper Thorneycroft and Hovermarine Transport Ltd. on their recent sales.

Mr. Mitchell: I thank the Minister for that helpful reply. Is he convinced that the amount of Government assistance he has now outlined is sufficient to ensure the future development of the industry? If necessary, will he call together all the interested parties for a consultation on the industry's long-term future?

Mr. Corfield: I assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that in allocating the £1·5 million to which I have referred I have already consulted those interested, and I have been anxious to ensure that it is with their agreement that these funds are directed to where they will do the most possible good.

Mr. Lane: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied with progress in the research and development programme on the very interesting possibility of tracked hovercraft, and will he give special attention to this in the period ahead?

Mr. Corfield: Yes, Sir, but that is another question.

Fuel Policy

Mr. Rost: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress he is undertaking with his comprehensive review of the nation's energy policy to meet future demand with co-ordinated economic planning; and if he will publish a White Paper in due course.

Mr. Eadie: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what consultations he proposes to seek to hold with interested parties in order to formulate an energy policy as a result of the Wilberforce Report.

Mr. Palmer: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has now decided whether to publish a White Paper setting out the Government's general fuel policy, following the recently announced increases in coal prices.

Mr. John Davies: Energy problems are kept under constant review. Recent developments in the coal industry clearly have an important bearing upon this work. I see no occasion to publish a White Paper in the near future.

Mr. Rost: Will my right hon. Friend's long-term review of the nation's future energy requirements take into account the need to apply more of our technology urgently towards obtaining greater efficiency in our fuel consumption so that we may prevent environmental pollution, produce our electricity more cheaply and ensure that our natural reserves of hydrocarbons are not exhausted?

Mr. Davies: I can assure my hon. Friend that all these matters are very much in the Government's mind although clearly main initiatives in all these fields lie with the various industries concerned.

Mr. Eadie: Will the Secretary of State bear in mind that reserves of natural gas have a life expectancy of only 20 years and that the vulnerability of oil, whether in the North Sea or in the Middle East in a strategic sense, must cause concern? There is no problem about known coal reserves and at this moment oil is being used faster than it is being discovered.

Mr. Davies: These questions of security of supply are very pertinent to the matter of energy policy generally. On the whole, forecasts made a very long time ahead often prove to be entirely upset by experiences subsequently encountered.

Mr. Palmer: Does the Minister appreciate that some of us have been following these questions for a rather longer period than he has? Is not the House therefore entitled to a statement from the Govern-


ment, perhaps a White Paper, setting out the latest energy position as the Government see it?

Mr. Davies: While I make no very great pretensions of longevity in this subject I should say that it has formed a major topic for me during the whole of my working life. On the question of a White Paper, the very fact that the issues involved are subject to constant and major variation militates against the usefulness of fixed positions adopted in a White Paper.

Sir G. Nabarro: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind in the broadest sense of friendliness that I congratulate him very warmly on the way he presented his material last Friday on North Sea oil and the comprehensive dossier I received? We are anxious about the next generation of power stations and whether they are to be coal- or oil-fired or nuclear-powered. As these matters must be planned seven years ahead, is it not reasonable that my right hon. Friend should take the House of Commons into his confidence?

Mr. Davies: I would very much hope that my disinclination to publish a White Paper by no means meant that I would not take the House of Commons into my confidence, and that goes particularly for my hon. Friend and his friendliness. But I doubt whether the material in question is really a suitable matter for a White Paper.

Regional Policy

Mr. Laurance Reed: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will publish the Report of the Central Policy Review Staff on Regional Policy as a Green Paper.

Mr. John Davies: It is not the practice to publish internal advice to Ministers.

Mr. Reed: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate the great disappointment caused in the North-West Region when the last Government refused to implement the proposals of the Hunt Committee? Has the Central Capability Unit been asked or will it be asked to look once again at these proposals?

Mr. Davies: My hon. Friend can remain assured that the matters in question, particularly those raised in the Hunt

Report, are being borne in mind in considering the problems of regional policy As he knows, when he accompanied a delegation from Bolton with others of my hon. Friends this was referred to and I gave that same assurance.

Mr. Bob Brown: Will the Secretary of State accept my assurance that we in the development areas, having seen the position go from bad to worse in the last 18 months or so, realise that the time is long overdue for the announcement of a positive new policy for the areas rather than the constant repetition of "I am urgently reviewing the policy for the regions"? Will he give a definition of his meaning of "urgency" since he has been using that term for 18 months?

Mr. Davies: "Urgency" means very shortly.

Dame Irene Ward: The development areas in general are waiting avidly for the report and it will be a bad job for the "think tank" if it does not produce a good policy. Presumably shipbuilding policy will also be reviewed, and my right hon. Friend should remember that England has quite as much an interest in this as Scotland. We have heard too much about Scotland and I should like a bit more assistance given to England.

Mr. Davies: Whether or not the regional policy changes, when they emerge, are considered good will be a matter for which I will largely bear responsibility and I will take that responsibility. The whole weight of shipbuilding does not reside solely north of the Border but south of the Border as well.

Mr. Benn: The C.B.I. has published its regional proposals, the T.U.C. has included detailed proposals in its economic review and Lord Rothschild has been permitted to publish his own Green Paper on research and development. Is there any reason, therefore, why the House should not have made available to it broadly the same advice as was made available to Ministers so that we can judge whether the Government's policy meets the requirements of the proposals which have been brought forward?

Mr. Davies: I think the Green Paper on research and development is a different matter which is not germane to this issue. But I have the feeling that the House will


have very full access to information upon which it can judge the validity of the new policies.

Overseas Visitors

Mr. Lane: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what has been the average annual increase percentage in the number of overseas visitors to Great Britain during the last five years for which figures are complete.

Mr. Anthony Grant: For the United Kingdom, 11 per cent. per annum in the five years ended December, 1971.

Mr. Lane: As one of the benefits of Common Market membership will be a further increase in the number of tourists from Europe, particularly to historic cities like Cambridge, is it not obvious, if we are to take advantage of this prospect, that imaginative action will be necessary by everyone concerned in these cities, and will the Government do everything possible to encourage this?

Mr. Grant: Yes, the Government most certainly will. The English Tourist Board will also take the point.

Mr. Mason: I recognise that the promotion of tourism to Britain has been very good but development at home is still lagging behind. When will the Secretary of State implement the part of the Act which we introduced in 1969 which gives the Government power to register and classify hotels so that tourists can know the quality and price of the hotels

Mr. Grant: This matter is under consideration by the Government in the light of information we are receiving but I am not in a position to make an announcement today.

Mr. John Hall: The increasing number of tourists to the main tourist centres, for example, Westminster Abbey, is now making conditions quite intolerable. Is it possible to find a way of restricting the numbers who visit these places at any one time?

Mr. Grant: The problem of concentration in certain key areas such as London and Stratford is a matter for urgent consideration by the British Tourist Authority and the English Tourist Board, which are preparing plans to rectify that situation.

Mexborough

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he is aware that the British Domestic Appliances Limited factory at Swinton, Mexborough, has decided to make 600 employees redundant, thus aggravating the number of unemployed in the Mexborough and district areas; and what are his plans to provide new jobs in this part of Yorkshire.

Mr. Anthony Grant: Yes, Sir. The Department will continue to use all the means available to it to encourage the development of new industry in Mexborough and the surrounding districts of this intermediate area.

Mr. Wainwright: When will the Department of Trade and Industry take unemployment seriously? This area needs jobs in thousands, not in one or two hundreds. When will the Department do something to discourage firms like British Domestic Appliances Ltd., which, due to losing markets, has now created 600 redundancies? Is it not time that this part of Yorkshire was declared a development area?

Mr. Grant: I understand the hon. Member's quite proper concern for unemployment. On the broad point he would do well to await the results of the regional review to which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has referred. On the specific issue of British Domestic Appliances Ltd. I understand that there has been a temporary stay in the execution of redundancy notices pending meetings between management and unions and there will be another meeting this week, which I hope will be satisfactory to all parties.

Mr. Kinsey: This is an important matter for the whole country, and where closures occur for economic reasons and to cheapen prices we can only accept them. Will my hon. Friend keep his eye on firms which are doing asset-stripping and try to take action to protect the workers?

Mr. Grant: If my hon. Friend gives me specific examples we shall study them very carefully.

Industrial Investment

Mr. John Hannam: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the level of seasonally-adjusted investment by manufacturing industries in the third quarter of 1971 as compared with the second quarter of 1971.

Mr. Tom Boardman: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the level of seasonally-adjusted investment by the distributive and service industries in the third quarter of 1971 as against the second quarter of 1971.

Mr. John Davies: Capital expenditure by manufacturing industries, at 1963 prices and seasonally adjusted, in the second and third quarters of 1971 was £372 million and £386 million, respectively; the corresponding figures for distribution and services were £408 million and £411 million. Figures for the fourth quarter issued last week show a small further rise for distributive and service industries but a fall for manufacturing industries.

Mr. Hannam: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the slight decline in industrial investment in the last quarter is rather disappointing, but in view of the likelihood tomorrow of a further reflationary Budget can he tell us the investment indications for 1972?

Mr. Davies: I am somewhat disappointed with the fall in manufacturing investment in the fourth quarter. The prospects for 1972 on the basis of the previous analyses show that we should be due for something of an upturn—3 per cent. is the expected figure—though there may be other factors, as my hon. Friend mentioned, that will influence the level of investment this year.

Mr. Boardman: Are not the figures for the distributive and service industries more encouraging? Do not they show that those important industries are recovering from the penal discrimination they suffered under the previous Government?

Mr. Davies: Certainly they have responded to the clear upturn in consumer expenditure which took place in the latter part of 1971 and early this year.

Mr. Dell: On the contrary, does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that the

investment record of distribution services has been very poor? Will he explain why in view of the reintroduction of investment incentives in this area by the present Government?

Mr. Davies: The reason lay in what I said in response to my hon. Friend, namely, that consumer expenditure was at a low level until the middle of last year. It is only with the pickup of consumer expenditure that we have seen a resumption of a higher level of investment in the services sector.

Mr. Alan Williams: If the right hon. Gentleman is right in his suppressed optimism, how does he explain why tomorrow's Budget is almost certain to include yet another desperate investment gimmick and why the economic development council for the chemical industry has indicated that new investors in the industry were 25 per cent. worse off under the investment allowance system than they were under the grants system? Will he also explain how in Wales last year so little foot-loose industry was created that industrial development certificates were a mere 40 per cent. of those issued during our last full 12 months in office?

Mr. Davies: None the less, the investment forward appraisal carried out by my Department regularly, and for years past, shows an upturn in investment during the coming year, and the most recent C.B.I. trend survey also seems to bear out that modest degree of optimism.

Motor Vehicles

Mr. Skeet: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the number of cars produced by United Kingdom manufacturers in 1971 as against 1970; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Ridley: The number was 1,742,000 compared with 1,641,000 in 1970, an increase of 6 per cent. Prospects for a further marked growth in production this year are good and the opportunity exists to approach an output of 2 million cars. Car production figures are published monthly and are available in the Library.

Mr. Skeet: I am grateful for those most encouraging figures. Will my hon.


Friend indicate the likely effect of an increase in steel prices on sales in the coming year, and the numbers of cars lost in the past year through strikes?

Mr. Ridley: It would be impossible to make those estimates. But strikes have already brought the 1972 figure below what it might have been. If the industry is to continue in prosperity, there must be an improvement in industrial relations.

Mr. Carter: Does the Minister agree that what the car industry and its workers most want is not the bandying about by politicians and Ministers of record numbers of cars produced but the long-term stability of the industry?

Mr. Ridley: The stability of the industry will be achieved by those who work in it.

Mr. Tinn: Is the Minister aware that the proposed steel price increases will make a difference of a very few pounds per car in car prices, and that it would be entirely wrong for the future development of the steel industry, a basic industry, to be in any way jeopardised by a reluctance to increase prices on this occasion as was displayed on a previous occasion?

Mr. Ridley: The Government have asked the nationalised industries to conform to the C.B.I. initiative, which has had an effect upon steel prices, but I must ask the hon. Gentleman to argue out with his hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Carter) what they jointly think about those two alternatives.

Engineering (Orders)

Mr. Fox: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the rise in net new orders in the engineering industries in the third quarter of 1971 as compared with the average of the first half of 1971.

Mr. Ridley: Ten and a half per cent. in terms of volume, seasonally adjusted.

Mr. Fox: As this industry is, after textiles, the largest employer of labour in my constituency, will my hon. Friend on every occasion answer those people who denigrate the industry, sections of which are doing extremely well thanks to the Government's policy?

Mr. Ridley: It is true that there has been a recovery in engineering orders and the conditions seem now to be set fair for a further expansion in the industry. I agree that it has every chance of taking advantage of present conditions.

Nationalised Industries (Prices)

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he is satisfied with the application of the Confederation of British Industry's prices ceiling to the nationalised industries; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. John Davies: The nationalised industries for which I am responsible have fully respected the C.B.I. pricing initiative and have contributed thereby to the success of that initiative.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: But will my right hon. Friend think very hard before allowing the arrangement to be renewed in the case of the nationalised industries? Quite apart from the fact that it must imply the abandonment of all commercial criteria in the nationalised industries, have we not now seen that it is bound to lead directly to taxpayers' subsidies for the settlement of individual wage claims in the public sector, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment identified as a very undesirable initiative, giving a fresh twist to the inflationary spiral?

Mr. Davies: I am very conscious of all the points my hon. Friend has raised, but I would point out how important it is to the nation as a whole that the containment of inflation should continue from the point of view of the nation's external competitiveness and also its internal standard of living.

Mr. Palmer: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that this forced interference with the pricing policy of nationalised industries is wrecking their financial structures, particularly that of the electricity supply industry?

Mr. Davies: Of course the problem of price containment has very grave difficulties for the industries, as I fully recognise, but I am sure the hon. Gentleman would not wish to dissociate himself from what I said in response to the Question—that the containment of inflation is a


primary purpose not just of the Government but of the whole country.

Mr. Emery: While my right hon. Friend must be correct on the desire to contain inflation, does he not accept that if the policy of price limitation, whether in the nationalised industries or in the private sector, is not followed up by an equal containment of wage increases, all that will happen is a build-up of future price increases, which will then be even more damaging to the economy?

Mr. Davies: Yes, Sir. I think there is a great deal in what my hon. Friend says. I hope that the whole purpose of the restraint of inflation will be seen as necessary by all sectors of the community.

Mr. Eddie Griffiths: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the price increase proposed by the British Steel Corporation—about 4½ per cent.—is unrealistic in view of the price escalation which it is asked to absorb? Can he tell us what concessions and indications he gave to the corporation regarding its borrowing powers and its capital investment programme for the future?

Mr. Davies: The Iron and Steel Act contains provisions for certain concessions to be made to the industry. These remain yet to be finalised. The hon. Gentleman, who knows the industry so well, is aware that the question of pricing and of production is not merely a function of the costs involved but also very much a function of the competitive atmosphere in which the industry must live.

Foulness

Mr. Adley: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to what extent the proximity of the Channel Tunnel was taken into account when Foulness was chosen as the site of the proposed new airport to serve the London area.

Mr. Anthony Grant: The Government were fully aware of the Channel Tunnel proposal when deciding on Maplin as the location of the third London airport.

Mr. Adley: While recognising the unacceptability of inland sites as long as aircraft remain noisy, may I ask my hon.

Friend whether he would not agree that if the Channel Tunnel is given the go-ahead it will tend to invalidate many of the assumptions on which the need for a huge new third airport in the South East is based? Is he further aware that the tunnel and the advanced passenger train will have enormous effects on the viability of short-haul aircraft movements into and from London as aircraft get bigger and quieter? Will he undertake that if it is decided to go ahead with the tunnel the Government will look at the size and scope of Foulness itself?

Mr. Grant: The Roskill Commission estimated that at most the tunnel might delay the need for extra airport capacity by less than a year, and we would not disagree with that view. We are examining the point further in our Channel Tunnel studies.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that the rise in air traffic is phenomenal? Is he aware that the number of movements at Heathrow is 50 per cent. up on the figure for 1963, when the Wilson Committee said that it was already far too high? Is it not necessary to operate all kinds of measures to reduce the impact of noise on particular sections of the community?

Mr. Grant: That is precisely why the decision was taken for the third London airport.

Shoe Sizing

Sir G. de Freitas: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress has been made, with the assistance of his Department, in obtaining international acceptance of the Mondo Point system of shoe sizing.

Mr. Ridley: Agreement has been reached on some details and member countries of the International Standards Organisation are continuing their studies of others in preparation for the committee's next meeting in November, 1972.

Sir G. de Freitas: Will the Government press on with this, recognising that it is not only an important matter for my constituents but that people everywhere who wear shoes will benefit from standardisation of sizes and that we in this country stand to gain in the long run from the export trade?

Mr. Ridley: I agree about the desirability of getting this matter finished, but international agreement requires agreement by our international partners and the matter is not in the hands of the Government but of the British Standards Institution, which is doing its utmost to carry it forward.

Mr. Fry: Does my hon. Friend realise that if the imports of leather and footwear, mainly from under-developed countries, continue to increase as they have done recently, it will be necessary for his Department to give rather greater assistance to the British footwear industry, a loyal and strike-free industry, than simply advice on shoes sizes?

Mr. Ridley: That is a separate question. We shall certainly keep our eye on the situation as it develops.

Exports (Comecon Countries)

Mrs. Renée Short: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action he intends to take to protect British firms wishing to export to Council for Mutual Economic Assistance countries from interference by the Co-ordinating Committee.

Mr. Anthony Grant: The purpose of this international committee, on which the United Kingdom is represented, is to avoid the disruption of trade which would be caused by conflicting national decisions on the operation of strategic export controls.

Mrs. Short: Is it not clear that that is not working? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that at the beginning of this month Ferranti was prevented from carrying out a £4 million export order of basic circuits needed for the building of computers in Poland? Does he not think it high time that the Government took a much tougher line with the committee? Apart from the fact that jobs in this country depend on our being able to export more and more goods to Eastern Europe, does not the hon. Gentleman think it galling and annoying that American circuit and electronic materials are exported to Eastern Europe while the Americans prevent ours from being so exported?

Mr. Grant: I understand all that, but in answer to the general question I would

say that there are bound to be both debits and credits in operating controls. We believe that on balance the system benefits the national interest.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in south-east Lancashire, where this order would have gone, there is serious unemployment and that the engineering workers there think that the Government are still living in the cold war era, particularly as Ferranti says that the contract was not for war purposes?

Mr. Grant: I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying. All the matters he has referred to are under consideration by the Government.

Candles (Industrial Development Certificate Control)

Mr. Bidwell: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will vary the criteria for industrial development certificates when such applications are for the manufacture of candles.

Mr. Anthony Grant: All applications are considered on their merits.

Mr. Bidwell: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that during the fuel crisis caused by the miners' strike and the incompetence of the Government, there was a grave shortage of candles? Is he further aware that there was profiteering galore and that candles were selling for as much as 6p each in the West End? Will he now take steps for the production of candles at a much lower price in future against the day when the Government run us into another fuel crisis?

Mr. Grant: I am not aware of what the hon. Gentleman claims. My right hon. Friend said earlier that if there was any evidence of such profiteering it should be submitted to us, when we would investigate. Such evidence has not yet been forthcoming. In any event, I do not think that anything the hon. Gentleman has said is a case for altering the criteria for industrial development certificate control.

Sir C. Taylor: As candles are largely made from whale blubber, will my hon. Friend also now answer Questions Nos. 43 and 45?

Mr. Grant: In due course.

Advance Factories (Scotland)

Mr. Ewing: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many Government advance factories are at present unoccupied in Scotland; and how many of that number have, respectively, never been occupied and been vacated, in the period June, 1970, to February, 1972.

Mr. Anthony Grant: Twenty-seven advance factories including two built for the Development Commission are unoccupied. Twenty-three have not yet been occupied and four have been occupied and vacated by the tenants since June, 1970.

Mr. Ewing: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his reply and also for understanding that these points were posed in the Question, despite how it is printed. There is obviously a difficulty in letting these factories. Will he accept that there is now a need to relax the conditions of letting, particularly as many of the factories are predominantly for male-employee industries? Will he examine also the possibility of handing over some of the smaller units to local authorities so that they may be used as sheltered workshops to deal with unemployment among handicapped people?

Mr. Grant: We endeavour to administer the advance factory policy as flexibly as possible for all types of employment. We shall keep the latter point made by the hon. Gentleman under consideration, but in the first instance the important thing is to get our own advance factories occupied.

Mr. Edward Taylor: Would it not help to fill these factories if my hon. Friend were willing to extend the special development area incentives to local firms considering expansion as well as giving them to incoming firms? Have the Government reached a decision about this yet?

Mr. Grant: All these matters are under consideration in our regional review and I cannot go further than my right hon. Friend has gone.

Industrial Dispute (Police Dogs)

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if

he will now make a statement on the inquiry into the use of police dogs during an industrial dispute at London Airport.

Mr. Anthony Grant: It is understood that a report will be submitted to the Chairman of the Police Committee of the British Airports Authority shortly. We will then consider in consultation with the Chairman of the B.A.A. whether any statement should be made.

Mr. Allaun: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it is now four months since this happened and that I and others have asked him questions about it on several occasions? Does he realise that we would like to know who gave the instructions to take the dogs there? Will that person be disciplined and will the Government send to all employers a copy of the Home Office circular of 1963 pointing out that it is a dangerous and provocative practice to send police dogs to meetings of trade unionists?

Mr. Grant: All these matters had better await the result of the inquiry. I understand that the reason for the delay is that there has been difficulty in obtaining statements from witnesses still subject to court proceedings and from others subject to High Court injunctions. It is obviously right that the inspectors should do the job thoroughly rather than rush it.

Mr. Mason: Will the hon. Gentleman explain to the House what is his attitude to the use of dogs in industrial disputes?

Mr. Grant: The attitude of the Government was explained—

Mr. Mason: What is the hon. Gentleman's attitude?

Mr. Grant: I have nothing further to add to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

Mr. Mason: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sure the hon. Gentleman does not want to mislead the House, but he has made a reference to a statement made by the Home Secretary. That was about picketing and had nothing to do with police dogs and industrial disputes.

Mr. Grant: Further to that point of order. I should explain that the reference I was making was to an answer given by my right hon. Friend as reported in HANSARD for 2nd December, 1971.

Machine Tool Industry

Mr. Carter: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he is satisfied with the present level of activity in the machine tool industry; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. John Davies: The low state of the industry's order book is a matter of concern at the present time. I am watching the situation closely.

Mr. Carter: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the low level of activity in this industry is a major contribution to the intolerable level of unemployment in the West Midlands? Is he also aware that the industry is saying that it can absorb up to a 30 per cent. increase in production without any increase in employment? In view of this sad state of affairs, will the right hon. Gentleman institute an inquiry into long-term employment in the industry?

Mr. Davies: I have had the benefit of one or two pieces of advice about the future of the industry, first from the machine tool economic development council, the chairman of which has given me some guidance on the subject, and secondly from the Way Committee which went into the whole question of the prospects of the industry. The truth is that the present position of the industry is due to its characteristics in relation to the industrial cycle and its sensitivity to low levels of investment. This is undoubtedly the problem from which it is suffering—it needs more orders.

Mr. Emery: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that a previous Minister, Mr. Frank Cousins, carried out a long and detailed inquiry into the machine tool industry which had precious little effect upon the industry? Is it not a fact that it is not inquiries that are needed but orders?

Mr. Davies: I heartily agree with my hon. Friend.

Mr. Benn: Since the Minister has told us that on Wednesday he will make a major statement on regional policy and on shipbuilding, and as he has already announced hovercraft policy and computer support, can he give us an idea of whether the Government will be ready to consider special help to the machine tool

industry, the difficulties of which arise because its cycle of orders tends to leave it short of investment when it should be preparing for future expansion?

Mr. Davies: The right hon. Gentleman is indulging in his considerable versatility and talent for anticipation, as usual.

Steel Industry

Mr. Duffy: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he is yet in a position to announce the outcome of the steel industry review.

Mr. Edward Taylor: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has now completed his study of the steering group's report on investment in the steel industry; and if he will now make a statement.

Mr. John Davies: I hope to make an announcement shortly.

Mr. Duffy: Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that reply most unsatisfactory? Over the weekend there has been a statement about the pricing policy of the corporation and the Budget Statement is impending. The right hon. Gentleman will be speaking in the debate on regional policy, which is under scrutiny. Does he not think that these developments and the concern being expressed in other quarters about industry's capacity and competitiveness warrant a statement?

Mr. Davies: I certainly hope that a statement will be made very shortly. This industry is, as the hon. Gentleman knows, of such absolutely primary importance to the rest of industry that it requires the most careful and thorough analysis before a decision is taken.

Mr. Taylor: Does the welcome statement that a decision will be made shortly mean that we will soon have a decision on the proposed development of a major steelworks at Hunterston on Clydeside? As most of Scottish industry regards this as crucial, may we have a decision on this at the same time?

Mr. Davies: I said that a statement would be made shortly and it would be wise for my hon. Friend to wait for that.

Mr. Eddie Griffiths: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that "shortly" is not good enough? Is he aware that he has been saying that for the last three


months? A statement was promised before Christmas; we are now approaching Easter. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm today that when his statement appears it will contain something of substance and deal with the criteria he laid down for the joint steering committee and that it will be a comprehensive statement dealing with the British Steel Corporation over the next 10 years?

Mr. Davies: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the statement, when it comes, will be substantial.

Sir R. Cary: May I ask whether the statement will include something about the future of the Irlam steelworks?

Mr. Davies: The future of any individual works is a matter for the corporation, not for me. The purpose of the statement will be to deal with the very deep review which has been taking place into the future of the industry as a whole.

Mr. Eadie: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that people in the steel industry are getting fed up with the Government's policy? Is he further aware that whenever Ministers go anywhere they promise that the new steel complex might go there? Will he clarify this and stop this deception of the people?

Mr. Davies: My right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department and myself have certainly given no promises or tips that any particular complex will go anywhere. This is a matter for the corporation to make recommendations about and is not for the Government.

Bankrupt Companies (Disposal of Information)

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will introduce legislation to regulate the disposal of stores of confidential information from bankrupt companies.

Mr. Ridley: The books, records and documents of a company in liquidation are normally in the possession of the liquidator, and fall to be disposed of within the provisions of the Companies Act, 1948, and the Companies (Winding Up) Rules, 1949. I am not sure what particular point the hon. Member may have in mind; while I cannot hold out hope of early legislation, I would be glad

to consider the matter further if the hon. Member would care to write to me about the particular point which interests him.

Mr. Huckfield: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Vehicle and General Insurance receiver has given exclusive use to the London and Edinburgh General Insurance Company of over 800,000 names from his files? Is he further aware that the company has been given sufficient information to enable it to send out individual quotations to 340,000 former V. & G. policy holders? Is he further aware that this is highly confidential, highly personal information? Is he also aware that the receiver has said that after this company has finished, after the exclusive use of the lists for one month, anyone who wants to buy the information can do so? What does the Minister intend to do about that?

Mr. Ridley: The answer is that I was not aware of those facts. I will look into them and write to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Alan Williams: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the circumstances described by my hon. Friend are a matter of legitimate public concern? Will he tell the House whether or not, when such data is sold, any duty of confidentiality is imposed upon the purchaser?

Mr. Ridley: It is a matter for the liquidator in considering the sale of assets of a company whether there are moral reasons which transcend his commercial duty to realise the maximum for the creditors. I am not aware of the circumstances that the hon. Gentleman has raised and I should like to look into the matter before commenting.

ISRAEL (SUBMARINES)

Mr. Faulds: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the possible sanctioning by the Government of the sale by Vickers of two submarines to the Israeli Government.
It is urgent because the question is being considered now by the Foreign Office and the House should have an opportunity of expressing its view before


any deal is finalised; it is specific because it has to do with the impending preparation and signature of a contract for the construction and sale of two highly effective instruments of war; and it is important because the supply of arms to any country in that part of the world is likely to exacerbate an already highly-charged situation by further upsetting the balance of military power and preparation.
The addition of these two submarines will add to Israel's preponderance of weapons of war and arm her further for the offensive campaign at which she is so practised.
For these reasons the matter is urgent, specific and important, and I ask that the House should have an opportunity of debating the possible provision of these two submarines to Israel. Thank you for your consideration, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Faulds) for having given me notice of his application. He asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 for the purpose of debating a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the possible sanctioning by the Government of the sale by Vickers of two submarines to the Israeli Government.
My decision does not bear upon the merits of the matter. I simply have to decide whether I should give this application precedence over the other business of the House already arranged. I am afraid that I am not prepared to give it that precedence.

NORTHERN IRELAND

Motion made, and Question proposed. That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Harold Wilson.]

Leave having been given on Thursday, 16th March, under Standing Order No. 9 to discuss:
the failure of the Government to announce the long-promised political initiative on Northern Ireland and the consequences and immediate dangers arising from that failure.

3.32 p.m.

Mr. Harold Wilson: Once again the House debates Northern Ireland in the shadow of a ghastly atrocity today which the whole House will deplore.
This debate is long overdue. The House will be aware that for five or six weeks I have not pressed on the Government the proposal for all-party talks which I thought most hon. Members, and certainly the Government, had accepted in principle 16 weeks ago. The reason was that for the past six weeks and more there have been clear signals from the Government, supplemented by statements in the House, that a comprehensive Government initiative was being planned and that, having agreed on that initiative, the Government would bulldog it through without fear or favour.
There has been a great deal of Press speculation about the contents of the proposed package, much of which must have been pure speculation because some of the proposals we were told to expect were flatly inconsistent one with another. Not all of it was speculation. There was a strong belief that the Government were acting on clear proposals for, first, constitutional changes to provide for Catholic Ministers in a Coalition Cabinet; second, a run-down of internment; and, third, a 12-yearly referendum on the issue of the Border.
Ministers will concede that we have not pressed them unduly to hurry a statement. Indeed, recognising the difficulties which any Government would face in such a situation, particularly the possibility of making a statement on the eve of the Ulster Unionist Annual Conference, I said to the Lord President after the Business Statement on 2nd March:
Is he aware that we trust it will not be too long delayed? On the other hand, it is better to get the right statement a day or two


late than to rush the whole proceedings and pert haps get it wrong."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd March, 1972; Vol. 832, c. 755.]
But that is nearly three weeks ago, and even today there is no guarantee of a statement this week.
After weeks of uncertainty, dangerous uncertainty in Northern Ireland exploited by men of evil intention—on both sides—we were told last Wednesday that the Prime Minister and Mr. Faulkner would be meeting, but not until seven days later. I acquit the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister of any desire for procrastination. It seems more that it was the pro-consul who was treating lightly the emperor's summons. If this visit has to wait for another seven days one has to ask whether Mr. Faulkner perhaps feels that these long weeks of uncertainty have strengthened his ability to resist the introduction of the comprehensive measures which the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues consider necessary.
Indeed, all last week the stage was being set for further resistance. Graver still, these weeks have been used for the development of a para-military state of preparedness which is causing deep insecurity and fear on both sides of the Border.
I do not under-rate the difficulties of the Government in this matter. Given courage, determination and willingness to attack this problem on a sufficiently comprehensive basis, when the initiative is announced the Government have the right to ask for the help of all of us. But we read—and, still more important, those who live in daily terror of the spread of violence read—stories of a divided Cabinet and of the inability of the right hon. Gentleman to take the action he believes to be necessary.
The evidence appears to be too deep and circumstantial to dismiss this speculation. We must all hope that it is untrue, or, if it is true, that the Prime Minister will now assert his authority. Were a decision on Northern Ireland adequate in scope and in authority to be withheld or further delayed for any such reason, this would amount to abdication in the face of the greatest challenge we have faced as a nation in this generation.
Last week the House read with deep anxiety the account of a resolution unanimously passed by Ulster Unionist

back benchers rejecting in terms each and every proposal which in one grouping or another must form the constituents of the Government's initiative. The Prime Minister must make clear—I am sure he will—that the authority lies here in this House. We read of the pressures on the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland, and I for one am prepared to believe that some of the otherwise inexplicable actions of Mr. Faulkner have been designed to enable him to resist intolerable pressures from his own extremists. God grant that is so.
The House has debated Northern Ireland several times over recent months. I myself have spoken in the recall debate last September, in the debate on the Address, in the debate which followed shortly on my visit to Northern Ireland and in the debate on the tragedy of Derry. In the brief time we have today it is not necessary to go over all the arguments, and I do not propose to do so except to say that in my view, from intimate contacts with those most closely concerned in the North and among all those I met last week in Dublin the mood has worsened from doubt and anxiety to fear. There is fear that a still graver situation is on the point of developing which could engulf not only the danger areas of the North but the South, and—we must face this—could extend to this side of the water.
In terms of violence and threats of violence, in terms of fear, insecurity and the alienation and perversion of a whole generation of Ulster's youth, Catholic and Protestant, in a very real sense the bell tolls for all of us in these islands. Whatever any of us have said in past debates remains true but true in graver, greyer, darker colours.
The problems of Northern Ireland will not be solved by violence. I said this in Dublin last week in private as in public. For those who seek the unity of Ireland—and I said this in Dublin—violence can delay unity. It cannot achieve the unity of Ireland, still less advance it. No bombs, no guns, no acts of heroism can coerce a community into a political solution which they are not prepared to concede on the basis of consent. Violence can destroy Ireland long before there is any hope of uniting Ireland. Following the sombre words of the Victoria Hospital surgeon John Robb, wracked as he was


by the obscenities of the Abercorn incident, in Dublin, I said:
You can no more reassemble the dismembered parts of a nation than you can put together the dismembered, mutilated parts of the human body.
Equally, a mere negative resistance to violence—and this is totally necessary—will not of itself bring peace and reconciliation to Ireland, North or South. In debate after debate we have urged this; urged that there must be a political initiative capable of firing the imagination of those who increasingly have been driven, wrongly but remorselessly, to the point where they believe that their grievances cannot be assuaged, that their aspirations can be made a possibility only by the invocation of violence.
At this point I must tell the House about another meeting in which I was involved in Dublin last week. On the initiative of a prominent member of the Dail, a meeting was arranged with three members of the Sinn Fein, which I understand is a legally registered political party, but one section of which has great influence over the I.R.A. Provisionals.
My purpose was to make clear to them that violence would achieve no political objectives in Northern Ireland, that there must be a political solution in the end negotiated between the elected representatives—and only between elected representatives—in the three Parliaments of the principal parties, that violence could not unite Ireland—indeed, could only delay the unity of Ireland, and could even destroy Ireland.
I also made it clear that no British Government could accept the three proposed conditions contained in the Republican movement's published document of 10th March as required, in their view, for continuing the three-day truce. I further pressed the point that when the British Government's initiative was made public there should be a truce to enable all parties, all organisations, all churches and all persons in Northern Ireland to judge the initiative coolly and not under pressure of violence. Indeed, if the Government's initiative was perhaps not regarded as adequate, among important sections in Northern Ireland, I strongly pressed the view that there should be an open-ended cease-fire to enable all-party talks to take place for building on and

expanding the terms of the Government's initiative.
Finally, I made clear that many of us in Britain deemed it vital that elected political representatives of the minority in Northern Ireland should be totally free, without threats of violence and without other interference, to act as spokesmen of the minority in the search for a solution; because the efforts of us all—the Government from September onwards and the proposals for Northern Ireland talks—have suffered through the inability and fears of the elected representatives of the Catholic minority to feel free to enter openly into the talks which all of us in this House, and I believe in Ireland, desire.
I should make it clear that, while the Government were aware that such a meeting might take place, I did not seek their approval, nor could they have given it. But I must make it clear that I was not in this meeting to which I have referred, or at any point in my visit to Dublin, acting as intermediary for the British Government. This was made clear throughout my visit both in public and in private. I stressed publicly and privately that I had no foreknowledge of the contents of the proposed initiative. I have, however, since reported to the Government briefly on my talks in Dublin.
Going back to what has happened over the time since the House debated Northern Ireland in a two-day debate last November, I would point out that it is not so long ago that we were told that the security forces were getting on top. It seems a long time since we had reassuring statements that the containment of violence was succeeding. Event has succeeded event, and the legends created by each event have entered into hearts and minds, and into Irish history, regardless of the relation of these legends to these events. Bitterness, fear, insecurity have grown. In Ireland, tragically, legends mean more than facts; what is believed is more important than what is.
As the incident in the Falls Road in July, 1970—a tragic mistake but one for which I have never held this Government responsible—destroyed the confidence in troops who, when they marched in, were charged with the rôle of absolute neutrality between the communities; as internment changed the situation—now, as


we must all admit, almost beyond repair; as Derry, where we await the report of Lord Widgery, has itself entered Irish history and legend with the same force as the histories of the Irish martyrs, whatever Lord Widgery may report—as a result of all this we start again today from a situation where initiatives which not long ago could have solved this problem could now be no more than dust in the wind. This is the law of diminishing acceptability of which I warned the House last November, 16 weeks ago.
There must be a willingness to negotiate, there must in due course be even a willingness to forget, if the power to forget even exists in a people so dominated by history.
The Government must take the initiative. Sixteen weeks ago I put forward my own proposals. One of them, which perhaps is worth mentioning, involved the continuance of Stormont on terms which included the transfer of responsibility for security from Stormont to this House. The events in the months since then have underlined this paramount necessity. The rôle of British troops has totally changed since they went in on the orders of the previous Government, and to the cheers of all communities in Northern Ireland, charged with protecting any against whom violence might be directed. My view is that their presence there is as urgently needed as ever. Tragically, it may shortly be needed even more so, indeed to protect a community too many of whom now look to the I.R.A. for protection, but whom in the case of an Grange backlash they know the I.R.A. could not protect.
We must produce an initiative in which the Army is there as the protector of all—and not regarded as pursuing a rôle directed against one section of the community—as quickly as possible. At the earliest possible moment, it is a peacekeeping rôle, not a rôle of search and arrest, to which the forces of the Crown must again be committed.
Nearly a year ago, when I pleaded with the Government to withdraw all the licences for privately held guns, I made clear that that impartial rôle was what I had in mind. In such a case if troops were to enter a house in search of weapons, it would be an impartial search involving Unionists' homes and Catholic homes alike. But now, through no fault of the troops but because of

the orders they are given from political authority, they are regarded as the instruments of the Unionist majority.
We know how wrong that is, because the Unionist political leaders and their active supporters are themselves only a fraction within a Protestant majority which, outside politics—and many of us have met very many of them, trade unionists, businessmen, members of chambers of commerce and others—and freed from fear would be capable of understanding and desirous of reconciliation.

Mr. R. Stanley McMaster: Does the right hon. Gentleman not accept that all the 270 to 280 people killed and 5,000 very seriously injured over the past two years have been killed or injured entirely as a result of I.R.A. activity?

Mr. Wilson: In all those cases where evidence has been produced, what the hon. Gentleman said is substantially true. There are some obscene atrocities in which the evidence is not as yet sufficiently clear. There is a growing danger of other forces using this kind of action in a provocative way to try to blacken still further the record of other people. This is something we must increasingly fear when a different I.R.A. faction, and perhaps some men of violence and evil on the other side, may wish to invoke violence. There is no evidence yet that it has happend so far.
In Dublin last week when on television I said that no British Government could accept a single one of the three propositions put forward by the I.R.A. Provisionals, and I expressed my view that British forces should stay as long as the people of Northern Ireland needed them. This is true, whatever the future may hold, and I say this not excluding the vision of a united Ireland; for if such an agreement were reached, it would be for the politicians of a united Ireland then to decide whether the presence of British troops was still required.
I trust that the initiative which the Government will put forward will be comprehensive, imaginative, courageous and, above all, adequate; and what is adequate today may drive deeper and harder, and to some may appear more provocative, than what would have been adequate last November.
Because delay has brought deterioration and fresh danger, I fear that it might have to go further even than what would have been adequate when the Government first proclaimed their intention to announce an initiative of their own only six weeks ago, so rapidly has the situation deteriorated. If the initiative is further delayed, what will have to be done will grow more difficult, more repugnant perhaps to many hon. Members, than the terms which I had hoped to debate today.
I asked of all the leaders of all the parties in Southern Ireland last week—and this is what I have said to my own party—a willingness to study the terms of the Government's initiative when it comes, to support with all our hearts and all our influence—because each of us in this House and certainly each party is capable of influence in varying degree on different communities in Northern Ireland—any proposals that we can fairly consider to be directed towards peace and reconciliation.
Indeed, we have gone further. If, as appears likely, the Government's initiative—and we recognise their difficulties—contains some elements which are worthy of support, the House should give them our full support and, even if we consider the package as a whole totally and perhaps bitterly inadequate, we should then seek to build on what is good rather than swing into a posture of out right condemnaiton.
Governments alone will not solve this problem. Parliaments can; but only on a genuine all-party basis, here, in Belfast, and in Dublin. If we fail, not as Governments but as Parliaments, then we create an area of desolation where violence and murder, an inhumanity bordering on bestiality, will breed and take over, where we shall perhaps have what many anxious people north and south of the Border fear most of all, a cross-fire of murder and violence almost impossible to control, with the Army and other security forces caught mercilessly and almost hopelessly within that cross-fire from the two extremes.
For those reasons, I shall not suggest today what should be the constituents of the Government's comprehensive initiative. I made my own proposals 16 weeks ago, and I have developed some of them since. Others here and north and south

of the Irish Border have made their contribution to the pool of ideas which must be considered. I suggest that we should not today enter into a competition of permutations. If we do, false hopes will be raised and needless fears will be fed.
In these circumstances, therefore, I make only two points for the Government to take into account. One relates to suggestions which have been made for constitutional changes granting to the minority the statuory right of representation at every level in the Cabinet and the Ulster Government. This is right. The basic trouble, of course, has been the denial for over 50 years of any right to the minority one-third of the population to have any voice in decisions affecting their future.
Many of us would welcome constitutional changes of this kind. But I must warn the Government: constitutional guarantees on a confessional basis, depending on a man's faith, religion, whether he goes to Mass or takes a Protestant form of Communion, would be utterly wrong. It would be quite wrong to legislate on a confessional basis. If there is to be legislation—and I should welcome it—it should be to apportion authority in relation to the elected strengths of political parties, not faiths. The case is all the stronger in that in addition to the Northern Ireland Labour Party which has always rejected any religious test and which represents men and women of all faiths and none, we now see the cross-community Alliance Party with a parliamentary base for the first time.
My second point is this. If the Government, because of the difficulties that they face with their own party or in their dealings with Stormont, are forced into a position where their initiative is more restricted than we had been led to believe a month ago and on which high hopes were built, I plead with them at least to take an urgent and immediate decision by a programme, a time-table of phased releases to end imprisonment without trial.
Internment, as I have frankly told the House, certainly has led to the incarceration of many men concerned with acts of violence even if they have not yet been brought to trial. But no one can place any hope in a weary, negative continuance of that policy. For every man imprisoned, 10 more recruits have sprung


up, as from dragons' teeth. When I called internment a recruiting sergeant for the I.R.A., there were many who felt that I was understating the position. The worst feature of all is that those who have flocked to the I.R.A. colours are drawn not only from the adult population, not even mainly from the adult population, but, above all, from the young and even the very young—that "class of 1980"to which I referred last November.
Nor is this all, with the facts and boasts of para-military preparations among the ultras on the Unionist side, together with the threats issued this weekend. The House must recognise this. Death's recruiting sergeant now at work, not on one side only, wears not the tricolour armband alone. Increasingly he wears the orange sash.
Therefore, I beseech the Government. This delay, pressures whether internal or external to this House, may have retricted the parameters within which their initiative can now be constructed and carried through; and all of us would regard this as a tragedy. But if that is so, at least let them have the courage now—and it will need courage which the world will applaud—to announce a phased programme on a time scale to end imprisonment without trial in Northern Ireland.
Then let us start from there. Then let us have the all-party talks, against that background, designed to produce a political settlement, short term, medium term and long term; and I repeat that long term must include the possibility of an Ireland united by consent.
It is our duty now in all parts of this House, in Stormont, and in Dublin, to work for a political settlement which alone can solve the problems of the tragic inheritance with which this generation must contend. We of this generation have inherited it. It is an inheritance deriving from events in history and no less in legend long before most of us were born, for which we do not carry the fault and for which we carry no responsibility. But responsibility for dealing with that inheritance is ours now. Above all—and there is no escaping this—it is the responsibility of this House and, in the last resort, only of this House. It is a responsibility that we cannot escape unless we confess ourselves content, having failed, to be absorbed into a still darker, still

longer record and legend as the co-destroyers of a civilisation which one day a future generation to whom we shall have ignobly passed the burden will have to recreate and rebuild.

3.57 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Reginald Maudling): As the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. Harold Wilson) rightly said, this debate takes place under the shadow of yet another atrocity. While the details are still coming in, it appears to have been a particularly callous and brutal act, once again regardless of the danger to the lives and limbs of innocent people of every age and of either sex. We must realise that any attempts to deal with the problems of Northern Ireland are bedevilled by these senseless, brutal acts of violence.
This debate takes place under the inhibition that the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland is coming here in a couple of days' time. Clearly, it would be wrong, if the Government had proposals to make, to make them public before they had been discussed with the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland. Therefore, I am sure that the House will recognise that I am not in a position today to go beyond what is possible in those circumstances.
I was grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for what he said about the way in which any proposals that the Government should make should be received. I am sure that it is right that, if we put forward proposals, they should be considered by everyone concerned with the future and peace of Northern Ireland deliberately and carefully before judgment is made.
Therefore, I am a little sorry because I understand that the debate is to end in a Division. I did not detect from the right hon. Gentleman's speech any division of principle which would justify dividing the House of Commons this evening. As I have said before, I attach very great and serious importance to trying to do what we can to present to the people of Northern Ireland a united point of view from this Parliament.
The right hon. Gentleman criticised us for delay, and it is fair to criticise any Government for delay, but I do not think that it is adequate to divide the House of Commons. In a matter like this, as the


right hon. Gentleman knows so well—like the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), whom we are glad to see restored to health—those who shoulder this responsibility know the dangers inherent in any move in this particularly tense and delicate situation. Anything that we do can be a mistake, and mistakes in these matters can cost human lives. Therefore, caution and deliberation are reasonable counsellors in these matters.
It is right always to consider the dangers of taking an initiative, if that word is appropriate, against the danger of continuing the course on which we are at present set. We have to balance the one against the other. There is also the particular danger, when two sets of people are widely divided the one from the other—I am not talking about the Government, the I.R.A. or the men of violence; I am talking of the two communities, the genuine peace-loving vast majority of both communities who are certainly divided one from the other—that by trying to come with a solution between the two points of view we destroy our own position and do not contribute to a final solution.
That is why we have always sought to get agreement by discussion. This is why we have sought for many months past to get discussion between all parties concerned in Northern Ireland. We believe—I believe very strongly myself—that in the long run it is only by discussion that a lasting solution can evolve.
We took the initiative last summer when we proposed discussions with all concerned in Northern Ireland about the position there, discussions without any inhibitions and limitations. Indeed, I think that this was the view taken by the right hon. Gentleman and his party when they proposed discussions on an all-party basis. But they, like we, ran into the same road block. The political representatives of the minority community were not prepared to have these discussions. [Interruption.] I know the reasons that they gave. However, the simple fact is that they have not been prepared to have discussions. I think that history will record that this refusal to discuss the possibility of agreement has contributed a great deal to the prolongation of the problems of Northern Ireland.
I think that any solution must fall within certain very well defined limits, to which I should like to refer.
The first is that Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom. This simple statement of fact carries connotations in terms of both rights and obligations. Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom by the will of the majority of the people of Northern Ireland, and there can be no withdrawal of troops. People talk about withdrawing British troops. This surely is a total misunderstanding. It is said by many people abroad—in the United States particularly—that they are part of our Army, of our country. We cannot withdraw our own troops from our own country so long as they are needed to support the police force and the civil power in maintaining law and order. In a way, it is a pity to use the phrase—I confess that I have often used it myself—"the British Army". It is the United Kingdom Army in any part of the United Kingdom, and it will always be available in any part of the United Kingdom so long as the civil power needs its support in maintaining law and order.
The second point is that the position of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom cannot change without the consent of the majority. This is enshrined in the 1949 Act and in repeated assurances given time and again from both sides of this House—assurances from which I am certain neither side of the House could possibly depart without shame and dishonour. However, I must at the same time say that the rest of the United Kingdom, while recognising the right of Northern Ireland to remain with us, which we welcome so long as the majority wishes it, has to bear some very heavy burdens.
First, there is the presence of the Army of the United Kingdom carrying out a most distasteful task. I can imagine no worse, more difficult or more tragic task for any army than the job which our troops have to do in Northern Ireland. Nor can I think of any army whose morale could be so superb in the face of these difficulties.
The rest of the United Kingdom also has to carry a very heavy financial burden, the full extent of which is not yet wholly recognised, which is certainly growing as the development of the


Northern Ireland economy is inhibited by the campaign of terror and violence.
Therefore, in exchange for these burdens, the rest of the United Kingdom is entitled to say to all people in Northern Ireland: "We expect all of you to do your best to reduce these burdens, even at some cost in your own ambitions or desires."
The present situation is a combination of criminal violence and political alienation. Neither should be underestimated. No one underestimates the degree of violence, though one cannot help wondering somehow or other that whereas six months ago one or two murders were a headline, now they seem to disappear into the inside depths of the newspapers. Almost inevitably anything in this world, sadly enough, becomes lost in its sharpness by repetition. The degree of brutality and violence of the terrorists should not be lost to sight by any of us.
We should not underestimate that there is also a deep political gulf now between the two communities in Northern Ireland. Surely there are the two things with which we should contend, both of them equally important. No solution for Northern Ireland can be satisfactory unless it deals with violence and also achieves a reconciliation between the two communities.
It is part of the aim of the I.R.A. to alienate the Catholic population from the Army and the peace-keeping forces. One thing which we must always bear in the forefront of our minds is the imperative necessity of distinguishing between the men of violence and the minority community as a whole, the vast majority of whom are totally opposed to violence in any form. That has been the aim of the I.R.A., and to some extent I am afraid that inevitably, in the facts of the situation, there has been some success.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: Mr. Kevin McNamara (Kingston-upon-Hull, North) rose—

Mr. Maudling: But there can be no compromise with murder in any shape or form. However, the nature of the problem is political as well as military, and the solution of the problem calls for a political as well as a military solution.

Mr. McNamara: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that before internment was introduced he was warned con-

tinuously by hon. Members from this side of the House that the policy of internment would drive the I.R.A. towards finding a secure refuge amongst the minority, and that it is this foolish policy of the Government which has precipitated so much of the trouble?

Mr. Maudling: This matter is often argued, but I cannot accept it. I remember very well the way that the bombings and shootings escalated before internment was introduced. It was solely because of the extremely rapid rate of escalation of those incidents that internment was introduced. I shall have something to say about internment later.

Mr. A. W. Stallard: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the rate of escalation has increased even more since the introduction of internment?

Mr. Maudling: No. I have studied the facts with great care. I do not accept that conclusion.

Mr. A. E. P. Duffy: Mr. A. E. P. Duffy (Sheffield, Attercliffe) rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Leader of the Opposition was listened to very carefully in almost complete silence. I think that the Government spokesman should be allowed the same courtesy.

Mr. Maudling: I was saying that this is a situation which must be dealt with by both military and political policies: military to deal with the security situation and political to achieve what we have always described as agreement on how we might have an active, permanent and guaranteed place for both the minority and the majority communities alike in the life and public affairs of Northern Ireland. This is our second objective, wholly subscribed to by the Northern Ireland Government and by Mr. Faulkner himself. This is still our desire. The two objectives together must be achieved. The one without the other is not adequate.
What has been lost in the last few months is a realisation of how much progress has been made since the Downing Street Declaration in the reform programme followed by successive Northern Ireland Governments. They have fully carried out the undertakings given in 1969 in the Downing Street Declaration. I


think that if it were studied by any impartial person he would find that the degree of discrimination in jobs, houses, and so on, which was said to exist in 1969, will, with the completion of the reform programme, be eliminated.
But there are still two perfectly genuine fears, or feelings, on the part of the minority community. Just as the majority wish to have a total, permanent and effective guarantee that they will not, in Cardinal Conway's words, be bombed into a united Ireland, so the minority are entitled to ask for two things. The first is that discrimination on grounds of religion or any other sectarian grounds shall not be allowed to persist, and that there shall be guarantees against that. Secondly, they say—and I think rightly—that they want to play a full and proper part in the life of the country of which they are members. That reflects words which I have used, and which Mr. Brian Faulkner has used, that the minority community, like the majority community, should have an active, guaranteed and permanent part in the life of the country in which they live. Those, surely, are the limitations within which any proposals, or solution, or any intiative—if if one likes—should repose.
I now come to two other matters, the first of which is internment. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the problem of internment. Everyone—certainly everyone that I know—wants it to end as soon as possible. But it is a little too easy for people to say—the right hon. Gentleman did not do so, and I acquit him on this score—"Let us abolish internment, but do not let the gunmen loose again". It is not as easy as that. Everyone who can be charged with a crime in a normal court of law under the normal procedures is so charged. It is obviously in everyone's interests that he should be so charged. But when one looks at the facts in Northern Ireland, and at the recent examples of potential witnesses who have been murdered, one realises that the intimidation of witnesses is such that normal processes cannot wholly operate.
Everyone wants to see a rundown of internment, and then its abolition as soon as possible, but I do not think that anyone in this House—certainly not the right hon. Gentleman—wants to see the gunmen amongst the internees released on

to the streets of Belfast to begin again their campaign of murder and violence. That is the problem of internment which we have to face frankly and as effectively as we can.
The other point that I want to make is the economic one, which is sometimes overlaid by the other, more dramatic, aspects of violence that are taking place. The trade unions of Northern Ireland, particularly when they have come to see me, have emphasised the need for massive economic help. We have provided massive economic help from this country, and I am certain that the House would want to do more in that direction. We shall, of course, do anything that we can do to provide economic sustenance for peaceful existence and development in Northern Ireland; but all that will be lost if it is poured into a country rent asunder and torn by fighting and violence. Any solution for the problems of Northern Ireland must contain within it far-reaching and important economic measures of support.

Mr. McMaster: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that what the terrorists want is not just political reform of the kind indicated by my right hon. Friend, nor even economic reform, but a united Ireland? Does he not agree that they want only one thing, and that is the unification of Ireland, against the will, or irrespective of the will, of the majority in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Maudling: My hon. Friend is right, and that is the one thing which they will not get in any circumstances. Neither side of the House, in any circumstances, would agree to the unification of Ireland against the wishes of the majority. Both parties are totally pledged to that.
I am sorry that I cannot go into more detail, for reasons which I explained at the beginning of my speech. I cannot do so because of the meeting that is to take place.

Rev. Ian Paisley: My right hon. Friend having stressed that Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom, may I ask whether the Government have considered completely integrating Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom, instead of diluting the powers of the present Parliament in Stormont?

Mr. Maudling: Any Government must consider all possibilities, and I hope that my hon. Friend, if he gets an opportunity to take part in the debate, will indicate his attitude to that suggestion.
It would be wrong for me in anything that I said to imply that we were doing one thing or another in the proposals that we may be putting forward this week. For reasons well known to the House this is a difficult time to debate Northern Ireland, but I believe that the considerations which I have laid down will be accepted as setting up limits within which any solution acceptable to the House can be reached. I still cannot see what is the issue of principle on which the right hon. Gentleman intends to divide the House tonight.

Mr. James Callaghan: Before the right hon. Gentleman resumes his seat, may I give him the opportunity to elucidate his phrase "in any circumstances"? I understood the right hon. Gentleman to mean that in no circumstances could terrorism lead to a united Ireland. I take it that he was not saying that in no circumstances could there be a united Ireland.

Mr. Maudling: My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) said that the terrorists wanted a united Ireland against the wishes of the majority. If the majority wished for a united Ireland, no one could stand in their way. We shall not force a minority into a united Ireland if they do not want it.

4.16 p.m.

Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: I naturally accept that the Home Secretary is in this difficulty, that talks with Mr. Faulkner are to take place soon and, therefore, he cannot possibly disclose to the House what are the terms of the package. What I find depressing, though, is that what the right hon. Gentleman said in his speech today he has been saying week in and week out, month in and month out, and, as we know, it has led to the situation that in his own words, the gulf between the communities has widened.
I confess that there was not in the right hon. Gentleman's speech today very much indication of new thinking or new hope. The right hon. Gentleman said that it was hoped that these matters could be settled by discussion. The answer is

that we all did, but it has not worked, and the reason is that there is very little new to discuss until the Government take the initiative.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will at least acquit my Liberal colleagues in Northern Ireland, who may represent a small party, but one which, I think, has an honourable record in Stormont, of failure to take part in talks. One of its members is a former Member of Parliament, a Roman Catholic, and a person who has had great courage in remaining on the Community Relations Commission and trying to make community politics in that sense work. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept that I speak as one who hoped that discussions would work, but they have not, and I would much rather that today we were discussing the Government's proposals than commenting on the fact that we are still awaiting them.
If one factor has been true in Ireland, it is that our timing has always been wrong. The present proposals would probably have been more acceptable even a week ago, before Mr. Craig and the Ulster Vanguard. They probably would have been more acceptable even after Londonderry. They probably would have been more acceptable immediately after the despatch of the troops in 1969. Also, they would, of course, have been preferable had they been put forward before the necessity arose for troops to be sent in the first place. We had to wait until we were virtually in a state of civil war before troops were sent to protect a Catholic minority who were in fear of their lives. Indeed, right up to that moment the House of Commons could not even debate the affairs of Northern Ireland.
I repeat that I believe that the great failure has always been one of timing, and the longer that these arrangements are delayed, the longer that Westminster appears to equivocate, the greater will be the opportunity given to men of extreme views who will be advocating extreme action. I hope that the Government, when they have made these package proposals, will move with great rapidity, and that these will be proposals which can be supported by both sides of the House.
I think that the Government would be the first to accept that one of their greatest impediments is that they have


been so closely associated with the Unionist Party, which, by the very nature of its history, is committed to maintaining the Border in perpetuity. The job surely of this Government—of any Government in this country, I should have thought—is to be in favour of the unification of Ireland but only on the basis of consent, whereas, of course, the first part of that formula is a situation which, at least up to this moment, would never be contemplated by any Unionists.
As I have said before, the Prime Minister's speech in the Guildhall went a long way towards saying that unification was not ruled out, was not an impossibility for all time, that the Government rejected the sort of Hopkins on situation that we saw in Cyprus, of "never, never, never" would there be independence.
The right hon. Gentleman made it clear that if there were a clear majority for unification, it was unlikely that any British Government would stand in the way of that. That is a revolutionary departure from the position which was adopted by the Unionist Party and, so far as I know, is adopted by it to this moment.
So, first, we have to give long-term hope to the minority and reassurance to the majority.

Mr. Rafton Pounder: Just for the record, since the right hon. Gentleman is trying to make a very fair point, the following are the words used last Saturday by Mr. Craig—
No change in the Constitution of Northern Ireland except with the consent of the majority.
That is not quite the way in which the right hon. Gentleman was stating the case for the Unionist Party.

Mr. Thorpe: Mr. Craig was talking about the constitution and not the Border—

Mr. Pounder: They are the same thing.

Mr. Thorpe: With great respect, there are two totally different things. There is the actual constitution of Northern Ireland, which may or may not be changed—for example, with security transferred to Westminster but with a resident Minister in Belfast. That is a change in the constitution. There is then

a major change in the constitution involving the end of the Border. They are all constitutional changes. Mr. Craig was saying that there could be no change in the constitution at all without the expressed consent of the majority in the North.
What I am saying is that there may well have to be an amendment of the constitution which did not have the consent of the majority in Northern Ireland—with the exception of the Border, which is a very particular issue on which I believe the people of Northern Ireland have a specific and special right of consultation.

Mr. Harold Wilson: Surely the point that the right hon. Gentleman is making is perfectly sound. The Attlee Declaration and the 1949 Act referred specifically to the Border, but in the Government of Ireland Act surely Section 75 reserves the total right of this House to legislate, whatever may be done in Northern Ireland. That right, of course, refers clearly to the constitution and is not covered, as in the Attlee Declaration, by any requirement that it must be supported by the majority. Surely that is the point.

Mr. Thorpe: I am very grateful. Of course this is completely the position. Section 75 reserves to this House the right to make constitutional changes with the exception of Section 1 of the 1949 Act, which expressly reserves to the Parliament of Northern Ireland a decision about the future of the Border.
Therefore, with respect to the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Pounder), Mr. Craig's statement went very much further than he has suggested. The moral may well be that before people jump on Mr. Craig's bandwagon they should be clear about what he is actually saying. This is a case in point.
How, then, do we get negotiations for peace going? Obviously, internment looms very large. Perhaps it is the largest single factor. Of course I accept that some, indeed many, very dangerous men have been interned, but I also accept that it is highly probable—I put it as moderately as that—that some innocent men have been interned as well.
I know of a man who has been interned since 7th November, who is emphatic—and I believe him to be speaking the truth—that he has had no—[An. HON.


MEMBER: "Can he prove it?"]. But this is the whole basis of the British legal system. That is the biggest Freudian slip of all—"Can he prove it?". The whole basis of our criminal law is that a man is innocent until and unless charges are brought against him. This is why we are dealing with an almost alien mentality, why the reservation in Section 75, thank God, reserves to this House the constitutional amendments which may be required.
This man has been waiting four weeks since he appeared before the Advisory Committee. He believes that one of the reasons why he has not been released is that he has refused to sign a declaration that he renounces violence. The reason is, he says, that he has never indulged in violence; he says that he has been wrongly interned, that he never intends to indulge in violence. Why, in order to terminate his wrongful internment, should he have to renounce something which he has never indulged in and never intends to?
Therefore, if we are to get talks going, it is vital that there should be no more internment. The House has to realise the fear in which many innocent members of the Catholic community stand—not merely of violence from the I.R.A. or the Provos, but that they themselves may be "lifted", that they may be interned. We have to say that all those against whom no charges can be brought will be released.
I accept that there is a grave difficulty with the intimidation of witnesses. I accept that for some of those who have to be charged there may have to be special courts sitting in camera, and that witnesses may have to give evidence by affidavit. It may even be that their names cannot be disclosed to counsel appearing for the accused. That is a great derogation from our legal system, but I accept that in this situation it may be necessary.
But I believe that, apart from that, there should be no more arrests, save within the context of the criminal law—and that means that the Special Powers Act has to go. That one thing is crucially important if we are to have some form of talks between the communities.

Mr. McMaster: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the full implica-

tions of the following case in my constituency? Just three weeks ago an ordinary bus driver, Sidney Agnew, whose bus was hi-jacked, recognised one of the terrorists. A knock came at his door at 5 o'clock. He came to the door and, in front of his wife and children, he was shot dead. Every witness, every juryman and even the magistrate would be under a terrible threat to his own life if any attempt were made to try many of these terrorists.

Mr. Thorpe: I will answer the hon. Gentleman's point, but then I hope that the House will forgive me if I do not give way again, since so many still wish to speak.
Of course I accept that there is intimidation of witnesses, and that people who have laid complaints have been shot and murdered. But we also have to get talks going between all communities. I also accept that there are some innocent members of the community interned at the moment. I recognise the debilitating effect of this and of the fact that all those who are interned are exclusively members of one community. I am certain that the phasing out of internment is a prerequisite condition for getting negotiations going between people of good will on both sides.
I assume that if we are to keep the elective process going in Northern Ireland we want to encourage moderates in all communities not only to vote for moderates but to have cross-voting. I make no apologies as a Liberal for saying that I believe that the electoral system introduced in 1920, of P.R., will have to be re-introduced. I want a situation in which a moderate Catholic will cast his second preference for a moderate Protestant, and vice versa. This was happening at local and Stormont level when the system was operating. In other words, it has happened in the past and it can happen in future. It is vital that it does happen, not only for Stormont but for local government elections, too.
I agree with what the Leader of the Opposition said about community government. It must be not simply on the basis of confessional belief but on the basis of the representation of parties. I accept that this constitutes a form of all-party coalition, but we are dealing with the sort of situation in which this country


would have accepted an all-party coalition.
It must be on the basis of an electoral system in which the members of the different communities can show not merely the strength of their voting but the variety of opinions which they express within one party. This must be the case, otherwise we shall have those branded as "Castle Catholics".
When considering the question of the Border we must bear in mind that Section 1 of the 1949 Act reserves this exclusively to Stormont. Indeed, that provision states that
in no event will Northern Ireland or any part thereof cease to be part of His Majesty's dominions and of the United Kingdom without the consent of the Parliament of Northern Ireland.
That means that every Stormont election is, in effect, a referendum on the Border. If one is in favour of the Border being maintained, one votes Unionist. If not, one votes Nationalist. I want to take this issue out of Stormont politics. I want Stormont, if it survives—there is a big question mark over that—to get on with the job of running the affairs of Northern Ireland, but that means having a system by which the people of Northern Ireland can be consulted.
I am aware that every political initiative which one takes in Northern Ireland will receive the reply "How will it apply in the United Kingdom?" I shall be told "The Liberals want P.R. in Northern Ireland only because they want it in the United Kingdom generally." To that I reply "No. I want a system which represents minorities, and nowhere is that more important than in Northern Ireland."
I shall then be told "You Liberals want a referendum on the Border issue. How do you square that with not wanting a referendum on the question of entering Europe?" My answer to that is that the question of Europe can and should be determined by a sovereign Parliament here at Westminster, whereas the problem of the Border should ideally be determined by this House in Westminster without a referendum. However, I want to take the whole issue away from Stormont, and the only logical way one can have that specialised interest consulted is by having a referendum in Northern Ireland.
Thus, the logic of being in favour of this course for Northern Ireland but not for the rest of the United Kingdom lies in the fact that we are dealing with two entirely different animals; here we have a sovereign Parliament, while in Stormont we have a Parliament with delegated powers.
It is clear that we must get talks going. This can be done only on the basis of phasing out internment. We must get community politics on the basis of an electoral system which guarantees the fair representation of minorities. We shall get ahead in future only if the whole question of the Border is taken out of the current elections in Stormont.
I hope that Her Majesty's Government will take to heart the letter from 14 prominent Catholics dealing with community relations, employment, the Ombudsman, participation, the police and other matters in which they are not convinced that the Downing Street package has been implemented in the way it should have been.
I believe that they are right and that the Unionists have been dragging their feet. The package cannot be left to the Unionists for implementation. This is the responsibility of this Government here, and if they have fair, realistic and courageous proposals and if they are seen to be pursuing them with vigour and determination, then I hope they will have the support of the whole House.

4.34 p.m.

Mr. Angus Maude: As this is a very short debate and many hon. Members wish to take part, I shall be extremely brief and not give way.
The Leader of the Liberal Party made an attempt to grapple with this extraordinarily difficult problem. There were a few, but not many, points in his speech with which I could agree, though his general remarks, like so many on this subject, were based on two clichés which we must get out of our minds before we can talk sensibly about this subject.
The first cliché is that the situation in Northern Ireland is so bad that no proposals could make it worse. This is not true. The approach of civil war in Ireland would be very much worse than the situation now.
The second cliché—this is so frequently said that it has become literally a cliché—is that there can be no military solution, so that there must be a political one. From this it is suggested that a political solution instead of a military one can solve the basic problem of Northern Ireland. Again, this is not self-evidently true, and, in my view, it is totally false. There must be a military solution of part of the problem. Of this there can be no doubt. No political solution can replace that military solution.
It is also possible for certain political proposals to exacerbate the situation to such an extent that the task of the military is rendered more difficult, if not impossible. So far from criticising the Government for not having rushed into the kind of proposals which have been mooted with increasing firmness in the Press and other media in recent weeks, I congratulate them. They could have done more harm than good had they rushed in with such proposals; and the longer they think about this, the more apparent the difficulties will become and the more apparent will be the dangers of the process and the minor nature of the benefits which are to be gained.
I said that I agreed with some of what the Leader of the Liberal Party said. It is not true to say that those on this side of the House who are described as hardliners about Ulster think that there is no need for reform and political action of any kind. We obviously believe that there is. If it is true—the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) may be right aboutthis—that a number of reforms which we thought we had got agreed between Westminster and Stormont and all parties have not been fully implemented—obviously some of them cannot be in the present situation in Ulster; those which could have been, should have been—then I agree that Her Majesty's Government at Westminster should bring all pressure to bear to see that they are implemented, and in my view they would have little difficulty in the present situation in getting the necessary assurances from Mr. Faulkner.
Certain political proposals could be put forward now, for at the end, when the violence has stopped, there must be a political situation in which the two hostile communities can live together. It is entirely right that proposals should be

made now to make this possible when the violence has stopped.
What is overlooked by many commentators and others is the fact that proposals of this kind made now will do little to help the immediate difficulties with which we are faced in Northern Ireland. First, there is the risk that if they go too far they will exacerbate the extremists in the Protestant majority and feed the suspicion and doubts which the majority have and so make a solution more difficult.
Second, there is the fact—I beg the Government to recognise this—that for any political initiatives of this kind, the return at the moment will be infinitesimal. The people whom we are being asked to conciliate are in large measure unconcilable, unless they have been conciliated already. A considerable proportion of the Catholic minority has already been conciliated. The reforms which have been carried out or promised will, when completed, meet the points which the original civil rights movement existed to achieve.
The civil rights movement has illustrated throughout its history precisely the difficulty with which we are faced in Ulster. When one thing is granted, the demands escalate. It is futile to imagine that anything will stop the I.R.A. or will stop the extremists in the civil rights movement from continuing a campaign which is either violent or tends towards violence. The conciliation of these people cannot be achieved by minor political initiatives now, and major political initiatives will inevitably exacerbate the so-called Protestant backlash. I hold no brief for Mr. Craig. I have heard him speaking to Unionist audiences. I again urge the Government not to underestimate either his influence or his effectiveness with Unionist audiences in Ulster. He is a very influential and effective man, and is becoming more so.
I disagree with those who have suggested—including, I think, the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition—that the increase in the strength and noisiness of the Unionist extremists has been due to the Government's delay in producing a package deal. On the contrary, things started to escalate badly in Northern Ireland, and the doubts and suspicions of the Unionists began to be


exacerbated, from last November when the Leader of the Opposition originally made his proposals.

Mr. John Mendelson (Penistone): No.

Mr. Maude: The right hon. Gentleman's proposals were based on the virtual promise of a united Ireland ultimately. We know that he hedged it about with provisos and safeguards, but it was when the Labour Party apparently, to the Northern Irish, committed itself to a united Ireland that the trouble began and the Protestants began—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Hon. Members opposite do not like this, but it is true. One has only to go there and listen, as I have done several times since then, to know what the feeling has become. It is not the fault of the Government that things have been getting more difficult in Northern Ireland. If it is anyone's fault, it is the Opposition's fault.
I beg the Government to believe that they can now, by a single false step, make a civil war in Ireland not perhaps a certainty but a very grave danger. This would be a hideous betrayal of the peaceful Catholic minority as well as of the Unionist majority. Moreover—and I acquit my right hon. Friends of any intention to do this—if it should appear in Northern Ireland that Mr. Faulkner, when he comes here, is being confronted with unacceptable conditions or terms and being blackmailed into accepting them, the situation will get worse from that moment. Moreover, Mr. Faulkner's position might become totally untenable. I beg the Government to believe, if they do not know this already—though I think they do—that if Mr. Faulkner goes, there is no hope of ever negotiating terms with a moderate Unionist Government in Northern Ireland. Therefore, somehow or other the Government must negotiate an agreement with Mr. Faulkner which will meet the long-term political necessities of peaceful co-existence, which we know have to be agreed, without giving way on the things which are immediately urgent now to secure an end of violence.
Of course everybody wants the end of internment. Of course this is what the I.R.A. and its supporters and sympathisers want. Moderate Catholics will say that they want a few internees released. But we cannot turn 200 or 300 hard-core gunmen on to the streets

of Belfast and Derry. If we release a few now—there may be some whom it would be safe to release: if so, I do not mind: but I know that—

Mr. Stanley Orme: Is the hon. Gentleman in favour of permanent internment?

Mr. Maude: If we release a few, the demand will escalate to release more and more and then the lot. It will not bring anyone to the conference table. Anyone who believes that is fooling himself. If the representatives of the Catholic minority are so anxious to get around a table and do a deal, why have they not done it so far and why are they not at Stormont now representing their constituents? We are told that the minority is unrepresented politically. It has representatives. They walked out. They are not doing their job. No amount of appeasement short of what the I.R.A. and its sympathisers want will ever bring them to negotiate. It is folly to imagine that it will, because they are now so far out on a limb that they cannot get back.
The Government have an almost impossible task. This is an almost impossible situation. But it has got to be solved by the destruction and defeat of violence. The wrong attempts at compromise now could make it worse and not better.

4.46 p.m.

Mr. Paul B. Rose: I shall be very brief. There is an air of déjà vu about the debate. Our classic failure for centuries, more specifically over the last century, in dealing with Ireland—this is what the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maude) does not understand—is that we have always done too little and done it too late. The other failing is to let a minority of Irishmen who happen to live in four of the 32 counties of Ireland dictate policy at Westminster. These are the same people who, when my hon. Friends the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) and the Member for Glasgow, Kelvingrove (Dr. Miller) and I went to Ireland to see for ourselves in 1967, talked about "interfering Englishmen". Yet today they ask to be integrated. These are the people who waved the Union Jack as they shot down R.U.C. Constable Arbuckle. It was not a member of the I.R.A. who did that but people on the Shankill waving a


Union Jack, pumping bullets into British soldiers. That started off the escalation of violence.

Mr. McMaster: Mr. McMaster rose—

Mr. Rose: These are people who have talked for years about U.D.I.—there is nothing new about Craig's statement this weekend—and have now used the breathing space that has been conveniently given to them by the party opposite by their dilatory behaviour, to form a para-military organisation, the Ulster Vanguard, only replacing what was illegal before, the U.V.F. We know about the activities of the U.V.F. Many of us had many threats from them, years and years ago, long before the I.R.A. existed. We know that the U.V.F. was threatening Members of this House. I have letters to prove it. There is nothing remarkable—

Mr. James Kilfedder: Mr. James Kilfedder (Down, North) rose—[Interruption]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu): Order.

Mr. Kilfedder: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for an hon. Member representing an English constituency to make remarks of that sort?

Hon. Members: Yes.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order.

Mr. Rose: I promised to be brief. The hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) voted against the Manchester Corporation Bill when he represented a constituency in Northern Ireland.
These are the people who this weekend were inciting to murder by talk of liquidation of their opponents. There is nothing remarkable about it, because these are things that we have known all along. Our failure to confront them when we had the opportunity to do so now means that when we eventually grasp that nettle, as we inevitably have to do, it will be that much more difficult.
We are told that the Government will not and should not yield to violence. I agree with that; but the violence is not merely from one side. When violence comes from the I.R.A., we abhor and condemn that violence out of hand. I want to get hon. Members opposite to

condemn the violence that has come from their side.
The beginning of the I.R.A. must be understood. The last escalation came after the burning down of hundreds of houses, when slogans were put up saying, "I.R.A.—Run away", because the people, in their bitterness at having their homes burned down, felt they were not being supported. That incident saw the birth of the I.R.A. and their campaign of violence.
The Government cannot go on using the blackmail of the backlash as an expedient and pretext for resisting an initiative which, in the words of Sydney Smith, ought to have been taken 150 years ago, if one reads as far back as that time. Ulster was founded on the threat of violence and insurrection by Carson. Craig has now donned the mantle of Carson and the same threat of violence in order to blackmail the Government. There will be no peace in Ulster until that threat is met. Who is the Home Secretary, or the hon. Member for Down, North, to dictate and control security? What is the philosophical justification for men who will fight to the death for the British connection and will fight against the British Army in doing this? Ultimately they are men of straw and we should not overrate the backlash. Their whole philosophy crumbles if they claim to be British and yet resist the will of this Parliament, blackmailing Parliament and the rightful Government of this country.
A community government is needed, therefore, where decision-making will be made by all the people in Northern Ireland, whatever their community. There is the example of the Derry Commission which worked well until internment was brought in. Such a Commission might replace Stormont. The second priority must be to end internment. In the few months before internment four civilians and four military personnel were killed. In the same period after internment began the number had risen to 70. That was the effect of internment in damping down the situation. In the long run there must be the vision and perspective of the possibility of a United Ireland in which we, with Dublin, and with elected representatives of both the communities in Northern Ireland must take part. The Protestants in Northern Ireland, with their industry.


their background and their very strong qualities, have a great deal to give to a united Ireland. They are complementary and Ireland would be the poorer without them. I believe there must be generosity by Dublin, particularly in those aspects of law that affect personal life, to show more flexibility to accommodate the new situation. This is why I want to see talks not only with Dublin but with the communities of both the minority and majority in Northern Ireland.
So let us not again do too little too late and let us not forget that the Compton Report was not new. There was a Devon Report 101 years ago on the same subject, which said the same thing, until it was found out 10 or 20 years later what had actually happened to the prisoners. Let us not forget what was written 150 years ago by Sydney Smith who predicted the inevitable confrontation with the Orangemen who have divided worker from worker in Northern Ireland. Ulster saw the growth of threats of violence by the Craigs of that time. Let us not forget the home rule Bill which did not get through until it was too late for it to be effective or that the 1916 shootings were counter-productive and it was from them that the need grew for—

Mr. Peter Tapsell: Mr. Peter Tapsell (Horncastle) rose—

Mr. Rose: I will discuss the matter later with the hon. Member but I promised Mr. Speaker that I would speak for no more than five minutes and I—[Interruption] Hon. Members are preventing me from honouring a promise to Mr. Speaker that I would take no more than five minutes.
All these things were counter productive just as the hangings were as far back as 1867. We will never learn. In this Parliament we have never known how to deal with the territory that is nearest to us across the Irish Sea. We will not learn the lesson of 150 or, indeed, 700 years. We, who have set an example to the world in dealing with a vast empire, have never understood our nearest neighbours.
Ulstermen, whatever their faith, are not Yorkshiremen. They have great traditions which have been manipulated and twisted by politicians from Sir Randolph Churchill down to hon. Members opposite. They have been twisted

and perverted to the same old slogan of "no surrender" and "a Protestant Parliament for Protestant people". In an artificially created State guaranteeing permanent majority rule to one section of the population there can be no democracy. Stormont is an imitation and a very poor and perverted imitation of democracy and in that situation a new and radical initiative is needed. [Interruption.] If hon. Members would stop heckling me from a sedentary position—

Mr. William Clark: The hon. Member could have said something about the British point of view and he could have castigated the I.R.A. rather than giving the impression that the I.R.A. was absolutely right.

Mr. Rose: If the hon. Member had not been barracking he would have heard me repeatedly condemn the I.R.A. and I will go on condemning the I.R.A. for its acts of violence. I explained how the violence came about and I ask him to condemn those on the other side who have also used violence.
A radical initiative is now needed. Every day we have a divided Cabinet putting off the decision the battle lines harden and the forces draw up on both sides. The ultimate achievement of a political settlement becomes more and more difficult and the ultimate task of the military may also become more difficult. For weeks we have had the Government dithering and trembling on the brink and we shall show our disapproval of that dithering and trembling and of their thoroughly negative attitude in the Lobbies tonight.

4.59 p.m.

Captain L. P. S. Orr: The situation is far too serious for me to debate the dreamy fallacies which the hon. Member has just been discussing. The latest news from Belfast is that the bomb in the car in Donegall Street killed six and injured 97, some very badly. There were three warning telephone calls which appear to have been designed to get the people into the street where the explosion was to take place. This is the background against which we are debating this situation today.
The Leader of the Opposition was perfectly right to present the problem in sombre terms. It is a very sombre situation. In the last three years the majority


community in Ulster—and when I say the majority I am not talking of Protestants alone but of the Protestant and Catholic people of Ulster who want nothing more than peace, order and security—have suffered with the most extraordinary patience and courage the most appalling disasters that could have befallen any community.
There have been 245 dead, 5,500 injured, 1,500 explosions and millions and millions of pounds worth of damage in an area with the population of 1,500,000. If all that had happened in the boroughs of South-East London would the people there have been as patient as our people have been? My own town of Newry, a little town of 11,393 inhabitants, has suffered damages amounting to approximately £2 million. Almost half the business establishments in that little town have been destroyed.
That is the background against which the debate is taking place. The hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley has an awful lot to answer for. He has more to answer for now as a result of the attempt to be inflammatory today.

Mr. Rose: Mr. Rose rose—

Captain Orr: I will not give way. I have made the same promise to Mr. Speaker as the hon. Gentleman did. The hon. Gentleman has done enough.

Mr. Duffy: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not a convention of the House that when an hon. Gentleman makes an attack on another hon. Member he gives way to the hon. Member in question?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is a matter entirely for the hon. Gentleman concerned.

Captain Orr: I, too, have promised to be brief. The hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley is fond of dishing it out. He can jolly well take it this time. I will continue with my speech.

Mr. Rose: On a point of order. The hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) insists upon making not a general attack but a personal attack on me and my integrity. Do not I have the right to reply to him Mr. Deputy Speaker?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have already answered that point of order.

Captain Orr: The Leader of the Opposition and others talked about the deterioration which has taken place in the situation over the past few weeks. It is true that a considerable deterioration has taken place, and for one reason only—the doubts that have been created about the future.
The Government have not been the only culprit by any manner of means in the creation of doubts. I accept that the Leader of the Opposition may not have intended when in Dublin to create doubt, but certainly some of the things he said created doubts. The trouble is—and this is the reason for the Vanguard movement and the rallies in Ormeau Park—that the message is getting abroad in Ulster that the only way to make or prevent political decisions is through a massive display of force.
This is an appalling indictment of all our handling of the situation. It is an indictment of the House. We have made serious failures in our approach to the matter in the House. The first is the failure to give the law-abiding majority, both Catholic and Protestant, confidence that their houses, their lives, their children, their property, and the constitution under which they live are secure. The second failure is to make the majority of the Catholic community feel confident that they can respond to the offer of a greater share in Government without fear. The third mistake is that we have failed to make it clear that the democratically-expressed will of the majority of the community will be respected.
I agree with the Leader of the Opposition, I think it was, who said that now is perhaps not the right time to discuss specific proposals of any kind. I am inclined to follow his example now and deal with a few guiding principles which I think should be in the minds of people of good will, when they are talking between Governments on Wednesday and when we are considering what may come out of any discussions.
The first one—and I hope no one in the House will dissent from this—is that nothing should be done that will raise the temperature. It is very tempting in a difficult political situation for a Government, an Opposition, or anyone to make dramatic suggestions. There are times, and there may have been times in the


past, when a dramatic initiative might have been useful, but now is not the time for drama. If ever there was a time for a Government to keep their head and play it cool, it is now.
The second principle is that whatever is done must be done with the objective of restoring confidence in the future to both Catholic and Protestants. This House must win, what it does not have at present, the trust of the majority of the people of Ulster. It has not got it because of the doubts which have been expressed about the political future. That trust must be gained, because unless policies for Ulster are founded on the broad wishes of the majority of the people those policies are condemned to ruin and the country is condemned to chaos and destruction.
My third principle is the removal of political fear. In looking on Wednesday, and thereafter, at the arrangements which may be made between the Governments for the political future, we must look at anything which looks like a transfer of authority from one to another against the background of the fact that the House does not command the confidence of the majority in Ulster at present. So long as Labour Members and sections of the Press continue to make the wildest speculations and the wildest suggestions about the future in Ulster, so long as it is suggested that the will of the majority in Ulster might be flouted, so long will any real or imagined transfer of authority be likely to increase tension rather than diminish it. It is the fear that hon. Members like the Member for Manchester, Blackley might some day be in power here that makes the people of Ulster stick to their local Parliament. Until that fear is removed—

Mr. Stallart: Mr. Stallart rose—

Captain Orr: I will not give way, because I have promised to be brief.
My next principle—and I was glad that the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Liberal Party made almost the same point—is that neither on Wednesday nor in any other discussions should anything be forced upon the Government of Northern Ireland that would create an apartheid system based upon religion. [Interruption.] It is true that history has brought about a situation

in Ulster where apartheid does exist, in the sense that people tend to live in different places and go to different schools. I ask the House not to despair of integration, not to think permanently of two communities. I honestly believe that integration of the communities is still possible. It exists in the U.D.R., the R.U.C., the professions and the new industries. There are many conditions under which Catholic and Protestant work perfectly happily together, in the trade unions and other organisations. We should not in any of our arrangements create a situation where that could not develop.
There is another aspect which the Government should take into account when considering what takes place on Wednesday. I beg my right hon. Friend to be careful about it. Whatever we do, whatever ideas may be produced on Wednesday, whatever ideas may be discussed between the Governments, there comes a time when something may have to be announced, and it is vitally important that the maximum sensitivity should be used in the handling of anything that may be done. A good idea may come forward but it is doomed to failure unless it is presented with some kind of sensitivity.
Let us remember that the people in Ulster have not simply been reading the terror and the tears for three years; they have been suffering the terror and the tears for three years. The nerves are raw. The political antennae are hopelessly over-sensitive. Any foolish handling of the situation, however good the idea may be, is doomed to failure unless someone of the highest authority tells the people what is impending, what has happened, and convinces them that it is for their benefit, for their good, for peace, order, safety and security, that it is designed to destroy terror. Only in that way can something good come out of what happens. The very last thing must be anything that looks like an attempt to coerce or dragoon people.
I was glad to hear my right hon. Friend emphasise that the Army is the United Kingdom Army on United Kingdom soil. It is vital to remember that what the majority of the people in Ulster want above all is a guarantee of the Union. Within the guarantee of the Union, one can bring about a perfectly


just society, but the Union must be guaranteed and the guarantee must include the restoration of peace and order and safety for everyone.

5.13 p.m.

Mr. Maurice Foley: I associate myself with the condemnation of the violence in Donegall Street today and express my regret at the bereavements which have taken place. It is probably the only thing, quite frankly, in which I can associate myself with the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr), who, given the responsible position he has held in the Orange Order, reminds me, when he lectures the House on majorities and minorities, of Satan rebuking sin. Indeed, not only do I deeply sympathise with the Home Secretary, who has difficulties enough in producing his new package, but I start to understand some of the hesitations of the last six weeks after listening to one of his colleagues indulging in the kind of phrases we have just heard from the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South, who gave an absolute distortion of the truth.
It is true that each day there are deaths and violence. It is true that the Government have consistently taken the easier options to react to violence and to allow the local situation to determine their lines of policy. I found it incredible that the hon. Gentleman, referring to the uncertainty about potential political intiatives as having produced the Vanguard movement, said not a word of condemnation of the speeches made at the weekend and of the sinister undertones and, indeed, the overtones, in that kind of assembly.
I want to turn now to the question of law and order and one aspect in particular which is often neglected but which is probably more profound than some of the violence we see on our television screens. This is the extent to which the campaign of civil disobedience has bitten into the heart of the minority community and to which competent, able men of responsibility and honour have withdrawn from public life over many years as a demonstration of their abhorrence at the drift and the partiality of the British Government in dealing with the situation in Northern Ireland.
The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maude), who articulates it in particular, commented that there could

be no solution other than a military one—that until we get that we can get nothing more. But we ought to learn from other people's experience, and from our own colonial experience in Africa as well as in Aden of recent years, that where a population provides custody for gunmen, one takes on that population, and until one finds some means of political solution whereby it disowns the gunmen, one will never get a military solution.

Mr. Maude: I had better correct the hon. Gentleman now. I did not say that there could be no political solution until there was a military solution. I said that there could be no solution which did not include a military solution of the present situation.

Mr. Foley: I accept that that is what the hon. Gentleman said. All I can say is that, since the deployment of British troops in Northern Ireland and since the escalation of violence, one has seen nothing in the way of political initiatives, and this has led everyone to believe that the Government were intent on a military solution.

Mr. McMaster: Mr. McMaster rose—

Mr. Foley: No, I must get on. Those who argue that this is just an urban guerrilla situation have misread history and reality. If the Government argue that way, then, whenever they may produce their proposals, they will be doomed to failure if their reading of the situation is that somehow it concerns just a group of bombers and madmen and nothing more. In effect, through the policy of internment, we have the total alienation of the minority population. About 900 men are interned or detained, and except for a handful they are all Catholic. When the Home Secretary says, as he has done today, that the violence has not escalated since internment, he should look at the facts again, and I hope that we can be told the death toll of soldiers since the policy of internment was introduced, compared with what it was before.

Mr. Maudling: I did not say that it had not escalated. I said that the rate of escalation had not changed in the two periods.

Mr. Foley: Will the right hon. Gentleman then explain whether it is his judgment that the violence, the deaths,


are the bombings are all exclusively carried out from the minority side and whether this policy of search and detention and internment is the policy of repression of the minority? One is inescapably led to believe, given the realities of internment, that there is a degree of bias, that there must be a degree of political direction, either from Stormont with the connivance of Westminster, or from Westminster itself, in terms of dealing with the minority community.
There is no panacea; there is no one simple way to minimise violence and bring about normality. To build upon common ground, we must not deal with the effects but the cause. The cause is that for 15 years the minority community in part of the United Kingdom has been denied its fundamental rights, and we must recognise this. It is right to reassure the majority in the North that the constitutional link with Britain stays until the majority wishes otherwise. We cannot intimidate or coerce the majority into belonging to a united Ireland, we cannot embark on a policy of creating a Bogside in reverse.
Secondly, and equally important, we must assure the minority that new structures must emerge to give them full participation in economic and political life. I want something more from the Home Secretary than talk of permanent and guaranteed rights which he has been using since last September. I want him to spell this out a little more clearly. Does he mean that it is perfectly respectable for someone in the North to want to maintain links with Britain? Is it equally perfectly respectable for someone to believe in a United Ireland? If these two views are both respectable, provided there is no argument about coercion, intimidation or violence to achieve them, we might be beginning a return to normality.
The Orange Order and the Unionist Party has maintained for the last 50 years that anyone who believed in a united Ireland was a subversive element, to be kept under control. If we have learned that from the last three years we have achieved something and we have something on which to build. I should like a declaration from the Government saying that this is so, that someone who

believes in a united Ireland through peaceful ends is not to be denigrated or denied his fundamental rights but can live and work towards that principle in Northern Ireland, accepting positions of responsibility at all levels. If this is so it is a contradiction of Orange Unionism over the last 50 years and we have achieved something for the minority.
Where do we move from here? Given the political divisions in Northern Ireland it is nonsense to expect people to sit round a table and produce some kind of solution. We need to buy a breathing space to enable us to invest in normality so that the majority and minority may ultimately work out a solution from within Northern Ireland. We must move with internment, we must bring security and home affairs under the control of Westminster. Stormont ought to be put in abeyance for two years to give us a chance to build that normality, with economic assistance, with a view to recreating something new built on the harsh and bitter experience of the past.
If these thoughts can be embodied in the Home Secretary's proposals I will support them. In the absence of such policies I have no hesitation in condemning the Government for their failure to take a political initiative.

5.23 p.m.

Mr. Antony Buck: A debate on Ulster obviously creates special difficulties at this time. I must express my sorrow that the Leader of the Opposition decided to press for a debate now and my even greater sorrow that it should be the intention of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite to divide the House. This is a great pity. Nevertheless, there are some things which can usefully be said about the present situation without exacerbating it.
All of us who speak ought to mark our words well to see that they do not have the effect of exacerbating an existing tragic situation. That has largely been the case in the debate so far, with the exception of the speech of the hon. hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose). I am sorry that he is not present. I do not say that any of the speeches made by my hon. Friends on this subject have in any way been exacer-batory, but I would say to the hon. Member that I hope he will carefully and quietly read his speech tomorrow and


then search his heart and ask whether he thinks that his contribution was really helpful in the context of the present situation. It was an inflammatory speech, not at all helpful.
He and others opposite have asked for a condemnation of violence from this side of the House—violence from where ever it comes. Of course, I gladly make such a condemnation and a condemnation of talk of violence and liquidation. This way of expressing oneself in this context by any leaders in Ulster or anywhere must be condemned and I gladly do so.

Mr. Orme: That is the first time anyone on that side of the House has done so today.

Mr. Buck: I hope that we shall have two things from hon. Members and hon. Ladies opposite—condemnation of I.R.A. violence and it would not come amiss if we had from all hon. Gentlemen and hon. Ladies opposite a tribute to the forbearance of the British troops in Ulster and to the magnificent work they are doing. A tribute to their families also would not come amiss. Many of them live in my constituency and I see the great strain and suffering imposed on them by the present situation. I have made earlier the condemnation for which hon. Members opposite ask. I hope that we shall have a response from hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who may speak later.
We are soon to have an announcement of what has been described as the Government's initiative. The word "initiative" and the concept behind an initiative appear to have been condemned by some, including, according to Press reports at the weekend, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) who I am sorry is not here. I have told him that I intended to refer to what he had to say.
He is reported as having suggested that the word "initiative" in the context of Northern Ireland today is to be regarded as synonomous with abdication. I believe that my right hon. Friend is in error on this. Change there must be from time to time in the framework and structure of Government. My right hon. Friend has spoken with considerable eloquence of the prime duties of Government being to provide a civilised framework for Government and to hold the ring for growth and change. From time to time the frame-

work of Government must be altered or repaired and at present few would suggest that this framework is perfect. In the past my right hon. Friend has taken a more radical view than I of the changes necessary. What would be abdication at this time would be to do nothing, because it would mean that the gunmen had got their way in perpetuating an imperfect system. They would be able to use those imperfections to strengthen their base. It would be abdication for there to be no action at this time. What will be brought forward we do not know, although a wide range of possibilities was suggested in the Sunday newspapers over the weekend.
Criticism has been made of the time it is taking my right hon. Friends to bring forward their suggestions and plans. Such criticisms are really criticisms of our democratic system and are less valid because of the complexities of the issues and because so much in terms of human happiness and human misery depends on the decisions being right. We are not here concerned with fiscal finesse or lame ducks; we are concerned with preventing maimed bodies and preventing the loss of life of men, women, children and young soldiers in their full prime and vigour. The situation is already septic and if it is allowed to become gangrenous the health of the whole body politic will be affected.
As a friend of Ulster I say that change is needed. I regard myself as a friend of Ulster. I have had the privilege, and sometimes the high adventure, of visiting the Province on many occasions. I have also had the pleasure of visiting the home of the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt). My visits go back to the halcyon days of 1952 when I was Chairman of the Federation of University Conservative and Unionist Associations—[Laughter.]—a very fine organisation although it was strangely named. At that time I developed an admiration for those who succeeded in remaining moderate in the context of Ulster politics. The people of Ulster have a gaiety and kindness but to remain moderate in Ulster politics takes great courage. There are many in the Unionist Party whose courage I greatly admire. We must back the forces of moderation.
To condemn unheard the proposals which are to be brought forward by the Government would be foolish, and there has unfortunately already been a


tendency to show that type of foolishness. Fortunately, Lord Moyola and Sir Robert Porter have shown their customary good sense in reiterating that there can be no question of a movement towards a united Ireland in the absence of majority support for it, but have also shown strength and moderation by pointing out that there is room for manoeuvre. Modest and well thought out change can be our ally, but it must be on the basis of twin pillars. The first pillar is that the one million people and more who wish to remain part of the United Kingdom will be allowed so to do. I hope that is a policy on which a majority on both sides of the House can agree. The second pillar is that the 250,000 and more will not be second-class citizens but will be assisted to live full lives playing an active part in the affairs of the Province, so long as they adopt a rational attitude to the affairs of the Province.
I have no doubt that the proposals which will be brought forward shortly will be imaginative and moderate and I hope that both sides of the House will be able to support them, although there will inevitably be a few exceptions. I hope we shall be able to unite in supporting moderation in Ulster which, almost miraculously, is still a strong force, as was indicated by the polls published over the weekend.

5.35 p.m.

Mr. Frank McManus: I will not attempt to comment on the remarks of the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck). I do not understand how something can at the same time be moderate and imaginative; there seems to be an illogicality there.
The hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) dwelt poetically on the theme of sensitivity. He seemed to feel that without sensitivity anything which was done might fail. I conclude that the initiatives which are to come may be aimed for once against his side of the fence and that is why he pleads for sensitivity. The least sensitive thing that has happened in Northern Ireland for 50 years is internment, which was brutal in all its aspects, yet when internment was introduced the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South did not plead

for sensitivity. The hypocrisy of the hon. and gallant Gentleman is plain.
Why do the Government always follow the diktat, "Too little, too late"? They have waited more than seven months since internment in an atmosphere of escalating violence, destruction, death, horror and terror. For all that time, they have done nothing. Seven months ago moderate suggestions were put to them, but the Government did nothing. They are now considering the sort of demands which were made then. In seven months' time, after further death, destruction and horror, they will be considering the demands which are being made now. It is always too little, too late. The Government have only themselves to blame if the proposals they now bring forward, which we suspect will be too little too late, are publicly and unanimously rejected by the minority. The Government are not capable of solving this problem, and the sooner they step down and allow someone else to try the better for us all.
Not only have the Government done nothing about Northern Ireland but they have extended their repressive policies into England. England prides itself on its great tradition of freedom of speech. Speakers' Corner and Trafalgar Square are renowned all over the world as places where people can stand up and speak their minds. But the Government now say that Irish people cannot speak their minds on the Irish question. In addition, they are sending left-wing Socialist Irishmen home on trumped-up charges. The only thing they have not done is to embody the Special Powers Act and intern Socialists and Irishmen in this country who do not agree with the Government's attitude on Northern Ireland. That is probably round the corner.
For the benefit of the Government I will reiterate the basic demands of the minority in Northern Ireland. That minority is not 250,000 as the hon. Member for Colchester suggested, it is almost 40 per cent. of the population of Northern Ireland. The basic demands are these: an absolute unconditional end to internment and an amnesty for all political prisoners; the immediate withdrawal of the troops from the streets pending their eventual withdrawal altogether from Northern Ireland; and the abolition of


Stormont. Those are the unanimous demands of the minority.
The fact that they also happen to be the demands of the I.R.A. is embarrassing to many people, but it is nevertheless a fact. There is from the minority a clear, united, unambiguous demand coming from the minority and therefore there can be no confusion on the Government side. They cannot afterwards say, "We did not know who spoke for the minority. We did not know whom to look towards. They are disunited. They are running this way and that, with one person saying this and another saying something else." The situation is clear and unambiguous and they now know the situation in advance of anything they might want to say.
If the initiative comes, as we expect it to come, this week and falls short of these demands—and I speak for my two friends who are sitting beside me, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin) and my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt)—these initiatives will without question be rejected as too little too late.
Hon. Members opposite have now found reasons to argue that something must be done about internment. They say, "Why do we not let out a few of these boys, and then let us get on with the job". But that is nonsense, and I could prove it. It is not only the minority that is involved in these basic demands. There are considerable proportions of the majority who agree that Stormont should be abolished. I think that later in the debate we shall hear a spokesman from the majority—I refer to the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley)—who will no doubt indicate that he is not adverse to direct rule and that Stormont should be replaced rather than diminished.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I would ask the hon. Gentleman not to anticipate anything I say until I actually say it.

Mr. McManus: I only wanted to remind the hon. Gentleman of what he might intend to say, so that he does not forget to make that important point. It is clearly nonsense to make concessions on internment. To let out 100, 200 or 500 of the internees is to say, "We have been wrong, but we do not agree that we have been entirely wrong". It is

equivalent to saying, "As a gesture of goodwill, we shall let a few out, but we shall hold on to a few hostages to ensure the good behaviour of everybody else." If internment is wrong, as I submit it is—and most hon. Members on this side of the House will agree with me—I submit that it is wrong of itself. If the Government believe internment is right, then the Government must stick to it. But if they come to the conclusion that internment is wrong, they must do away with it. They cannot have it both ways.
Internment is not the real issue, and never was. It has been variously referred to as disastrous and as a stumbling block, but it is only a symptom of the real issue, and the real issue is Stormont. We all know that the cause of all this in the first place was partition, and Stormont is the manifestation of the evils of partition. Hon. Members opposite still perhaps regard Stormont as some kind of democratic Parliament, but it is no such thing and never was. It is a Mafia headquarters. It is the headquarters of a political system which was born out of threats of force and which has been nurtured on discrimination and downright thuggery.
How can one expect to say to a man, who all his life has discriminated against his neighbours, "The Government have now decided you have been a bad boy and from now on, because there is an Act of Parliament, you must no longer discriminate"? That does not work and we all know it does not work. People do not change as quickly as that. How can one expect politicians who have continually passed bad laws now to begin to pass good ones? Not one single person in the minority—and a great number of people in the majority—believes Brian Faulkner, the Prime Minister so-called of Northern Ireland, is capable of passing a good law. He has been brought up in the tradition of bad laws involving discrimination against the minority and therefore cannot change.
What in brief I am saying is that Stormont cannot be reformed and therefore must be abolished. If there is to be unity between the two communities, it will never come as long as Stormont remains, because in between the Catholics and Protestants stands Stormont the headquarters of Unionism. It is the duty of Stormont if it is to survive to see to


it that Catholics and Protestants remain disunited for, as long as that situation remains, there can be no progress.
I know that a number of hon. Members opposite will say that that is nonsense. Time will tell that it is not nonsense. Fifty years ought to have proved that it is not nonsense, that it cannot work, has not worked and never will work. I submit that, if the Government do not act now, in six or seven months' hence they will reluctantly—if unfortunately they remain in power for that long—come shamefacedly to the Dispatch Box and say, "We have reached the conclusion after much deliberation that Stormont must be abolished." In the meantime, countless Irishmen and women of all denominations will have suffered.
The time for the Government to act, if they wish to see progress towards peace, is now. The first and absolute thing they must do is to abolish Stormont.
The reasons given for not changing the situation are twofold. There are those opposite who argue eloquently that the status quo, whatever it is, must be maintained. The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maude) gave the House a dissertation of how a million of the minority must not be subverted in any way. The same type of man will argue that a racialist minority in Rhodesia must be maintained against all the wishes of countless millions who oppose them. Their only logic appears to be: what is might is right.
In Northern Ireland at the moment the Unionists appear to be the mighty ones, and therefore it is decided that one should side with them. In Rhodesia Ian Smith is the mighty one and therefore one sides with him. What better message could the Tories give to organisations like the I.R.A. The message is clear: "Get yourselves strong and the Government will talk to you." What is being said is that this will happen only if they are strong, because the Conservative Government talk only to strong people.

Mr. Russell Kerr: It is because they are weak men.

Mr. McManus: The other reason given against change is the fear of the Protestant backlash. The fear has become

more apparent; it has been encouraged by organs of opinion in this country. I refer to the leader in the Sunday Express yesterday which gave the following advice to Mr. Faulkner: "Mr. Faulkner, tell the British Government to go to hell." That is a paper to which the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avoncontributes and that is the message it put out to Mr. Faulkner. If any single member of the minority stood up and said words on those lines in Northern Ireland, they would be put in gaol instantly for incitement of one sort or another.
The backlash has governed British Government policy on Northern Ireland for 15 years. Always at a time of crisis or when the tricks seem to be slipping away from the Unionists, they with the connivance of many members of the Tory Party whip up the threat of the backlash. Werecognise that the emergence of Vanguard, with Mr. Craig talking about liquidating the enemy, is being done with the connivance of many members of the Unionist Party. The official Unionist Party said recently that there is a place in Vanguard for most official Unionists. With the connivance of that party and of a number of members of the Tory Party, the backlash is held up once again to demonstrate that there shall be no change in Ulster.
I submit to this Government that if they want progress at all, they must grasp this nettle and confront the Protestant backlash. They must ask the Protestant backlash, "What are your fears? For 50 years we have sacrificed everything to your fears. You have never told us exactly what they are. Let us hear now what are your fears about change in Ulster. Is it that you are so scared of a united Ireland that you are prepared to resist the Government of the United Kingdom? Are you so scared of a united Ireland that you are prepared to wreak awful vengeance and horror on your defenceless Catholic neighbours?"
If the question is asked resolutely now, the answer will be found insufficient. There is no substance in the fears. No one in the minority in Northern Ireland demands a united Ireland tomorrow or next week. We are attempting to point out that a united Ireland is inevitable. We are saying that the changes towards that inevitability must be made now. The Protestant backlash and Stormont which


stand in the way of progress must be removed. If they are not, this British Government will go down in history as the worst British Government ever to deal with the Irish question.
Many people have talked about a final solution to the Irish question. I want the Government of the day to bear in mind that one of the most imaginative suggestions for a final solution came from the very people whom right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite constantly vilify and condemn from that Dispatch Box. I refer, of course, to the I.R.A. It was the I.R.A. which suggested a new type of Ireland with a regional government concept. The idea is for one Government with four regional parliaments. That would give the Protestants in the North of Ireland immediate access to power and allay many of their fears. That suggestion has come from the so-called terrorists and gunmen. I believe that it is a good idea, as do many others. It well behoves the British Government to consider it, together with the other solutions that have been put forward. It is time now to act. Next week, next month, next year will be too late.

5.53 p.m.

Mrs. Connie Monks: In view of the meetings which are to be held between our Government and Mr. Faulkner, I am certain that the people of this country and of Ireland would have expected this House, at least to present a united front today. Even at this late stage I appeal to the Leader of the Opposition to withdraw his intention to force a vote on this issue, especially after the terrible happenings in Ireland today.
One of the tragedies for Ireland is that this House has not closed its ranks in a common determination to try to find a just settlement of the difficulties. The decision of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite to divide the House tonight goes against some of the wishes of their own strongest supporters. To prove what I say, I wish to read extracts from a letter from one of my constituents. He begins:
I personally am a member of the Labour Party but above all I hope I am honest enough to be called Christian.
He goes on to say that he is an active member of the British Legion, a member of his regimental association, and an active trade unionist. He says that he

belongs to these organisations and that he is proud of them. He writes to me as his Member of Parliament solely as an individual because, he says,
I am most perturbed at certain situations in Britain (which of course includes Ulster) that are prevalent at this moment.
Again he emphasises:
I am a member of the Labour Party and will never vote otherwise, but I deplore that party's attitude to the Ulster problem. Although I have many close Roman Catholic friends—including some of their clergy—I have fixed views on the Ulster situation and I would like to enumerate some of them; as in the main, I imagine they are common views of most ex-Service men and women.

Mr. George Cunningham: Why not read a bit faster?

Mrs. Monks: Because I want to be certain that hon. Members opposite take it in. He goes on:
Having spent several holidays in Ulster in my youth, moving about the country as a rover scout"—
[Laughter.]
There is nothing humorous in being a rover scout. I might point out that some hon. Members opposite would be better disciplined if they had been rover scouts.
During his travels in Ireland he realised that there was a strong Roman Catholic community and an even stronger Scots Presbyterian type of Protestantism and that to talk of church unity was and is stupid.
I realise also that the Roman Catholic element have complaints. For years both factions threw bricks, etc. at each other on certain special occasions, but only very rarely were rifles used, and petrol and nail bombs never. The B.4 Specials who were 100 per cent. Protestants were created and acted solely, in the beginning, as an anti-I.R.A. force.

Mr. Duffy: I suppose they were boy scouts as well.

Mrs. Monks: My constituent's fifth point is one with which the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. McManus) will probably agree. He says:
Human rights and freedom are one of the fundamental rights of any human society. That is what the war of 1939–45 was about and why people fought, bled and died to defend it, particularly the Armed Forces of the Crown which also included Irish men, north and southern volunteers in the ranks.
My constituent's sixth point—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]

Mr. Bob Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for an hon. Member to read at dictation speed?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu): The hon. Member is making rather a large proportion of her speech a quotation. I think that is to be deprecated.

Mrs. Monks: In view of the point that you have made, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall give my constituent's last two points in my own words. Any action taken against responsibility must be smashed or else the result is anarchy, and any use of children by either parent is laying up future troubles for the individuals and the State.
That is a valid point. Any march which includes women and children and on which troops open fire must have women and children casualties if that firing is indiscriminate. Where only men are shot by professionals, then the firing is certainly not indiscriminate, whatever any Press reporter or priest may insist.
It is the responsibility of this House to remove the blinkers and to look at the facts as they are, free from prejudice. Ironically, we have had to do undemocratic things, such as impose internment without trial, in our determination to protect innocent citizens, British justice, of which we have always been so proud, is jeopardised by intimidation so that witnesses dare not testify.
Reluctant as we are to admit it, it is clear that, as yet, the maintenance of order is dependent on the continuing presence of the British Army. This House has to be firm and united in a common purpose to maintain the law as it is. Any changes that may be necessary cannot be made as a surrender to violence. Change must be seen to come about in a democratic way. That is why at this late stage I hope that we shall not be forced to a Division.

6.2 p.m.

Mr. A. W. Stallard: I shall be extremely brief in order that there may be time for other hon. Members to speak.
I welcome the debate. Much of what has been said, particularly from the other side of the House, has been almost

irrelevant and perhaps more fitting to the next debate which will take place after—I hope—the Government announce initiatives, if at all.
I want to concentrate on the last part of the Motion, which deals with the consequences of the long delay and the immediate dangers to this country arising from that delay. Therefore, I should like to mention the decision to ban Irish demonstrations in Trafalgar Square. Earlier today I tried to table a Private Notice Question on this matter. I regret that you, Mr. Speaker, were unable to accept that Question. It is my opinion, to say the least, that this is another outrageous attack on our civil liberties. It will be interpreted as yet another attempt by the Government to stifle all opposition to their policy, or lack of policy in dealing with the problems of the Six Counties.
It may be even more sinister. The Government may be trying to incite people to defy this ban, which would then provide them with an excuse to extend the ban to other places and other issues, in anticipation of the mass protests which are mounting on many issues involving Government policy, such as the Housing Finance Bill, wage claims, and so on. I take this as an attack not only on the Irish question but generally, on all the mass protests of the working class movement in this country.
By itself, the ban would be bad enough. However, I should like to refer to last week's search of the homes of private individuals under the guise of the Criminal Damage Act, 1971, on a warrant which, I understand, simply stated that the police were looking for explosives. I know that they raided the home of at least one of my constituents and took away a number of documents, all to do with the International Socialist Movement, including lists of names and addresses which had nothing to do with the Irish problem and certainly were not explosive.
Linked with that we see this apparently unobstructed massive demonstration of the Vanguard movement in Northern Ireland and other cities at the weekend. We heard of the inflammatory speeches by the main speakers at those rallies. Together with the continuation of internment and imprisonment without


trial, this latest measure banning marches and demonstrations will be seen as a still further attack on the minority population of the Six Counties and their supporters here, in lieu of a definite constructive alternative policy.
I should like to quote from the weekend speeches of, for instance, Mr. William Craig and Pastor Jack Glass, which are reported in The Times this morning. Mr. Craig said:
We must get down to positive action"—
if the politicians fail.
One day it may be our job to liquidate the enemy.
We all know the implications of that.
Another report in The Times, states that
A Protestant army of 5,000 men will be raised in Glasgow to fight in Northern Ireland if the Government attempts to alter the province's constitution, Pastor Jack Glass, a leader of militant Protestants and loyalists in the city, told me last week.
He said civil war was almost inevitable in Northern Ireland and this would lead Protestants in Scotland to take dramatic action. 'If I can go by what people have said to me I could take as many as 5,000 to Ulster quite easily', he said.
So much for moderation.
I should like now to refer briefly to internment. To my mind—I have been a consistent opponent of it—internment is still the biggest single stumbling block to any real discussions. If the Government are thinking about phased ending, which has been mentioned by many politicians, they ought to put a definite time limit on it. I do not think that many people understand too much about internment as yet, and I want to make one or two criticisms on the phased ending.
First, none of the internees or detainees has yet been charged, so there is no proven justification for holding them. I will give some examples to show who these men are. At the end of last year a survey was made of the internees in one area. This is what was found in the hut. Two men were members of the old A.U.B.T.W. Hon. Members on this side will not need me to enlarge on what that means. It has now been amalgamated. The only possible crime that one of them had committed was to have been an active Republican in the 1930s.
Two men were members of the Sheet Metal Workers Union. Ten men were members of the British Transport and

General Workers' Union. It is true that one of them had been interned about 15 years ago. That was his crime. One man was a member of the National Union of Seamen, apparently subverting Stormont while he sailed the seven seas. One man was a member of the Irish Transport Workers' Union, and two men were members of my own union, the A.U.E.W. One man was a member of the Amalgamated Society of Woodworkers. Finally, in that part of the hut, one man was a member of the National Union of General and Municipal Workers.
I submit that these men were not lay-abouts. They were honest, hardworking members of the community—not villains—interested in the conditions, both working and political, of their fellowmen and women in those organisations.
Another criticism, which has already been touched upon, is that if we discuss this kind of phased ending of internment we shall be back in the situation—to which we always go back when we talk about Irish problems—which existed at Ballykinler in 1921—when the treaty negotiations were going on—when men still held in prison were used as hostages. That is a serious fear which people on the other side of the Channel have when we talk about phased ending of internment.
I think that the Government have tragically mistimed the whole operation. They have lost the many opportunities in the past seven months when it would have been possible to talk constructively. What we want now is a big decision—much bigger than we have ever needed before, and bigger than this Government are prepared or courageous enough to undertake. We need big decisions; not more repression and bans and escalations, particularly on this side of the Channel. I suggest, therefore, that the Government lift the ban that they have put on demonstrations in Trafalgar Square, end internment, bring control of security back to Westminster, and begin inter-party talks on a broad agenda immediately.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The debate must end at 6.32. I think that the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) hopes to catch my eye at about 6.15 p.m.

6.10 p.m.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I want briefly to elaborate on some points that I made in a question to the Home Secretary and in anticipation of the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. McManus).
The people of Ulster are in a state of war. Those of us who live in the City of Belfast and move about Ulster are aware of that, whereas many hon. Members evidently are not aware of the terrible situation that we are in. I cannot underline that enough.
On the one hand, there must be an initiative—I use the word deliberately—andI mean a military initiative, to deal with terrorists, to find the bomb makers and bomb planters, and to stop the gelignite trail from the South of Ireland to the North. That must be done. Until it is, there will be no peace in our society.
Coming to the political aspect of the problem, to the people of Northern Ireland at least four things may be considered. First, there may be a consideration of putting the people of Ulster into a United Ireland. For the majority of the people in Ulster that is definitely out. The majority of people in Northern Ireland will not have any sell-out to a United Ireland. This House needs to make itself aware of the deep feeling on that subject, and I say now that the people of Northern Ireland want one thing.
There is one priority before the Loyalists. Let the House not think that there are many priorities. There is just one. They want to save the Union. That is essential, and those who have read the Press know the stand which the party to which I belong has taken against the Vanguard movement. We deplore any suggestion that any section of the population should rise against another section and liquidate it. The forces of the Crown are the people to deal with subversives, and the forces of the Crown only. It is to be regretted that hon. Members of this House voted on the disastrous Hunt proposals, and that took away the solid bulwarks which had stood against subversion for 48 years, but I shall not go into that in detail now.
People in Northern Ireland need to be given some way to show how they feel. There should be an immediate referen-

dum so that the people of Northern Ireland can stand up and be counted on the question of the Union. They ought to have the opportunity to express their views through a constitutional channel. Incidentally, if the House wanted a referendum on the Common Market I should be happy about that, too.
The second thing is Mr. Craig's U.D.I. That is certainly not acceptable to the vast majority of Loyalists. Had their opinions been sought, they would have said that they wanted to hold to the Union. It is the Union that is uppermost in their minds. I emphasise that.
Thirdly, the Government could dilute Stormont, prune it, take away its power, take away whatever democracy it still has, or suspend Stormont and have a Commission. Does anybody believe that any Government would bring Stormont back? If Stormont were suspended, that would be the end of it.
Although Loyalists would not advocate it, and would prefer to adhere to the 1920 Act, there is another option open, namely, to integrate Northern Ireland into the rest of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Gerard Fitt: Mr. Gerard Fitt (Belfast, West) rose—

Rev. Ian Paisley: I must conclude my speech in one minute. But for that, I should give way to the hon. Gentleman.
I am talking not about a colonial situation, but about part of the United Kingdom. Let us be completely integrated. Let this House take its courage into its hands and control the destinies of part of the United Kingdom. In that way lies a possible solution, because I believe that there are Roman Catholics—in fact, a vast number of them—who would prefer to be part and parcel of the United Kingdom rather than have Stormont in its present place.
I am not calling for the destruction of Stormont, but I am saying that if the Government are going to tamper with it and take away its democracy the best option is that which I am putting forward, and I believe that it would commend itself to the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland.

6.16 p.m.

Mr. James Callaghan: This interim debate has been useful for apprising the Government of a


number of different views that are held, including those in the interesting speech of the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley). Its seems to me that one or two misconceptions need to be hammered on the head again. We have said that so many times.
I come immediately to the question of the Border. I was always aware that it was necessary to say that the Border was sacrosanct—to say that one had said it, and to say it again. The plain truth—and this should be known in Northern Ireland as clearly as we can say it—is that it is the settled policy of this country that the Border remains whilst the majority of the people of Northern Ireland wish it so to do. That is enshrined in a statute introduced by the 1945–51 Labour Government. It is also enshrined in the constitution of Northern Ireland.
That having been made clear both by those who feel that it would be against the best interests of the Protestants in Northern Ireland to come into a United Ireland and by those who believe that it would be in the best interests of Protestants in Northern Ireland to enter a new United Ireland—and both views are held—cannot it once and for all, as a preliminary to the talks that are about to be held, be understood by the people of Northern Ireland that this is settled policy?
That leads me to the second point, introduced by the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Pounder), who referred to the words of Mr. Craig that he would stand no tampering with the constitution. It is important to get this point clear. In the eyes of many in Northern Ireland, the word "constitution" means the Border. That is why this confusion arises. But it means more than the Border, and it is the responsibility of hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Belfast, South, not to fall into that confusion.
The Government of Ireland Act, 1920, provides a written constitution. It is, incidentally, one of the lessons for this country never to have a written constitution. It is here, and it exists, but no one can suggest that it is impossible to alter this constitution. Section 75 clearly reserves the power to this Parliament so to do.
I shall not go into the details of the written constitution—I trust that they are well known to hon. Members—but it would be absurd and misleading if Mr. Craig were to advance the view that in no circumstances can this written constitution be altered. Is that what he is saying? If so, it is an extremely dangerous doctrine, which should be repudiated by both sides of the House of Commons.
The question of the Border is not the same as the question of the constitution

Mr. Pounder: When I intervened in the speech of the Leader of the Liberal Party I was taking the constitution to mean simply and solely the Border of Northern Ireland, and not further ramifications. The right hon. Gentleman must ask Mr. Craig whether his reading is the same as mine.

Mr. Callaghan: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will ask Mr. Craig what he means. Mr. Craig, whose terms are frequently ambiguous, may have been ambiguous in this matter. Since he addressed an audience estimated at between 50,000 and 90,000, we are entitled to know what he meant. If he meant that no phrase, no comma, no full stop in this constitution can be altered, the Prime Minister might as well not bother to see Mr. Faulkner in the coming week.
I am one of those—I am not alone in this, even among Ulster Protestants—who believe that in a united Ireland the vigour, force and energy of the Protestants would be such that they would command a great deal of influence; they would hold their own. But although I may hold that view, this is not a decision for me to take; it is their decision. Any one of us is entitled to his own view on the question whether Ireland is likely to have more tension or less, and whether the communities are likely to live together better or worse if they are mingled together in their own constitution and their own political institutions than if they are separated by the Border. But no one is entitled to say that this House will depart from the settled policy that exists on the Border in relation to the majority of the people.
There is a great responsibility on the South. They have already started, but they could do more. The institutions


could begin to emerge and people could start to meet and live together. That is another matter, with which only they can deal, but I beg that they should do it.
I come now to consider the status of the talks with Mr. Faulkner. I am assuming that it is possible to amend this constitution. Let me say to the Home Secretary, who does not seem to understand it, that we are voting tonight on a simple issue. We believe that the Government's delay has resulted in the situation becoming worse and not better. We believe that as more time has elapsed it has become more difficult to get solutions accepted now than it would have been three months ago, and certainly more difficult than it would have been when internment was introduced.
What we are voting about, simply, is the Government's handling of the situation so far. With respect, they are responsible for it. It is they, not we, who allowed it to be known, by winks and nods, that they thought that some change was desirable and necessary in the political structure of Northern Ireland. It was they and not we who said, "We must go ahead with this, irrespective of what is coming."
They were then unclear—I have followed these things closely recently; I have had very little else to do—as to whether they intended to have discussions first between the various parties—which is one way of doing it—in an attempt to get agreement, or to reach their own conclusions, announce them to the world and then either act on them or, at that stage, have some discussions.
The responsibility lies here. If the Prime Minister objects that those who do not carry the responsibility must be careful how they criticise, I can only say to him that I do not believe that the delay is the result of a detailed calculation by his Ministers. It is my conviction—this can only be a matter of opinion—that the delay arises because the subject was not given a high enough priority by the Prime Minister, due to the fact that there have been divisions in the arguments which have gone on in the Cabinet, due to the fact that strong pressure has been brought to bear on the Government by some of their back benchers, and due to the fact that the Home Secretary has not pressed this issue to a conclusion sooner.
That is my conviction about the reason for the delay, and it has nothing to do with the issues before us. Not a single initiative will be put to Mr. Faulkner this week which has not been canvassed a dozen times by 50 different Members on both sides of the House. There is no evidence for assuming that the delay has made the likelihood of acceptance any greater. It has made it worse, and everyone knows it.
So I come back to the status of these talks. I take it that the Government plan—

The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman is expecting the Home Secretary to follow him, but in case he is not, I must most strongly repudiate the allegation that he has just made. The problem of Northern Ireland has been given the highest priority. The right hon. Gentleman himself will recognise from his own experience as Home Secretary the intractable nature of all the problems with which any Government have to wrestle. That is what we have been doing, in an endeavour to find a solution which will at any rate bring to an end the tragic loss of life which we have seen yet again today.
What we are trying to do is find a solution which will reduce the risks in Northern Ireland, and not increase them. I must remind the right hon. Gentleman that ever since last September we have been clearly saying that we wanted discussions with all parties, here and in Northern Ireland. We have not been able to get them—but neither has the right hon. Gentleman and his party.

Mr. Callaghan: In those circumstances I cannot understand why the Government have waited so long to call Mr. Faulkner into consultation. If they have been aware for months that they could not get talks going why have they not used the interval to clear their proposals with Mr. Faulkner? We do not know now whether we will have an announcement on this matter before Easter. Nor do we know—the Prime Minister did not take up this point—what we should know at some stage, namely, what happens if Mr. Faulkner raises objections.
The Political Editor of The Times said this morning that the Government are determined to go through with it. Is


that so? If so, the House should know it. I would believe that that was right. The moment has come when the Government must take the responsibility and go through with their proposals. They may make things worse or better. I only hope that the sensitivity to which the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) referred will be present on this occasion. I would not say that sensitivity has been the hallmark of Government during the last two years. Certainly I agree that it is needed on this matter. I hope that whatever proposals are put forward will be put forward with the sensitivity that is required.
At the same time, there is a responsibility on the Government if they can command the support of the House. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said, we shall set out to build on what is good. We shall not condemn the whole if we think that some parts are inadequate. If the Government can command the support of the House for any plan that they bring forward—I trust that it will be as imaginative as the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck) said it needed to be—they are right in present circumstances to press ahead with it.
But I beg them to do one thing in addition to consulting Mr. Faulkner. He will come here clad in the robes of a Prime Minister, but will have to be, and will be fully known to be, looking over his shoulder as a party leader. We have all seen him driven—in my view against his own inclinations—further and further to the right in the last few months, because of the pressure put upon him. He is an able, ambitious and energetic man, and what he has done is fill the vacuum left by the Home Secretary.
The Government now have an opportunity to pull that situation back. They have an opportunity, if they can get the support of the House, to press forward with this plan, which, as my right hon. Friend rightly said, must include something more about the Border. They must both reassure the majority and indicate to the minority that the Border is not closed for ever. They must include internment, including the package to which

the Home Secretary referred, and they must include another political structure which will enable the minority, in whatever form it is phrased, to play a bigger part.

We condemn the Government tonight and are voting against them because we believe that the solutions which they now propose to put to Mr. Faulkner could have been put forward weeks—no, months—ago. They have missed the tide on more than one occasion over this. They have missed it not because of the inherent difficulties of the situation but because they have failed to grasp the situation quickly enough.

That is what we shall be voting against tonight. It is the inertia of the Government which has made me feel so frustrated time after time. I believe that there has been an opportunity to take the situation in hand; because the Irish respond. The people of Northern Ireland—Protestant and Catholic alike—respond to generosity, to imagination, and to leadership when it is given. I have seen it happen. It could happen again.

I trust that on this occasion we shall have both the statesmen there and the measures that will enable the great majority of people in Northern Ireland who want peace—peace with justice to them all—to come together. If we can achieve that, that will be the time when further measures against the I.R.A., if such can be taken, will be profitable and fruitful; because it will be at that moment that the population will say, "We are tired of this attack on our liberties and of the troubles. We want to see an end to them. We can see a future now".

When the Prime Minister puts his plan to Mr. Faulkner and to all the leaders from Ireland, what they will be considering this week is not what the future direction of Northern Ireland shall be. What they will be considering is whether Northern Ireland has a future; and the responsibility for that is in their hands.

Question put. That this House do now adjourn:—

The House divided: Ayes 257, Noes 294.

Division No. 101.]
AYES
[6.30 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Bagier, Gordon A. T.


Albu, Austen
Armstrong, Ernest
Barnes, Michael


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Ashley, Jack
Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)


Allen, Scholefield
Ashton, Joe
Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)




Beaney, Alan
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Ogden, Eric


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Hamling, William
O'Halloran, Michael


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
O'Malley, Brian


Bidwell, Sydney
Hardy, Peter
Oram, Bert


Bishop, E. S.
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Orbach, Maurice


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Orme, Stanley


Booth, Albert
Hattersley, Roy
Oswald, Thomas


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Hilton, W. S.
Padley, Walter


Bradley, Tom
Hooson, Emlyn
Palmer, Arthur


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Horam, John
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Pardoe, John


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Huckfield, Leslie
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)


Buchan, Norman
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Pavitt, Laurie


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Pentland, Norman


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Hunter, Adam
Perry, Ernest G.


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Irvine,Rt.Hn.SirArthur(Edge Hill)
Prescott, John


Cant, R. B.
Janner, Greville
Price, William (Rugby)


Carmichael, Neil
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Probert, Arthur


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Rankin, John


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
John, Brynmor
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Richard, Ivor


Cohen, Stanley
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Coleman, Donald
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)


Concannon, J. D.
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)


Conlan, Bernard
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Roper, John


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)
Rose, Paul B.


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Crawshaw, Richard
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Sandelson, Neville


Cronin, John
Kaufman, Gerald
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Kelley, Richard
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Kerr, Russell
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Lambie, David
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Latham, Arthur
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Davidson, Arthur
Leadbitter, Ted
Silverman, Julius


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Skinner, Dennis


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Leonard, Dick
Small, William


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Lestor, Miss Joan
Spearing, Nigel


Deakins, Eric
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
Spriggs, Leslie


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Stallard, A. W.


Delargy, H. J.
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)



Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Lipton, Marcus
Steel, David


Dempsey, James
Lomas, Kenneth
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Devlin, Miss Bernadette
Loughlin, Charles
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Doig, Peter
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Dormand, J. D.
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Swain, Thomas


Duffy, A. E. P.
McBride, Neil



Eadie, Alex
McCann, John
Taverne, Dick


Edelman, Maurice
McCartney, Hugh
Thomas,Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff,W.)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
McElhone, Frank
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
McGuire, Michael
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Ellis, Tom
Mackenzie, Gregor
Tomney, Frank


English, Michael
Mackie, John
Torney, Tom


Evans, Fred
McManus, Frank
Tuck, Raphael


Ewing, Harry
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Urwin, T. W.


Faulds, Andrew
MeNamara, J. Kevin
Varley, Eric G.


Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Wainwright, Edwin


Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham,Ladywood)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)
Marks, Kenneth
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Marquand, David
Wallace, George


Foley, Maurice
Marsden, F.
Watkins, David


Foot, Michael
Marshall, Dr. Edmund
Weitzman, David


Ford, Ben
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Wellbeloved, James


Forrester, John
Mayhew, Christopher
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Meacher, Michael
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Freeson, Reginald
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Whitehead, Phillip


Galpern, Sir Myer
Mendelson, John
Whitlock, William


Garrett, W. E.
Millan, Bruce
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Gilbert, Dr. John
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)
Milne, Edward
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Golding, John
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Gourlay, Harry
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Woof, Robert


Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)



Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Moyle, Roland
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Murray, Ronald King
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Oakes, Gordon
Mr. Tom Pendry.







NOES


Adley, Robert
Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'fford &amp; Stone)
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Fry, Peter
McMaster, Stanley


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Gardner, Edward
McNair-Wilson, Michael


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Gibson-Watt, David
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)


Astor, John
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Maddan, Martin


Atkins, Humphrey
Glyn, Dr. Alan
Madel, David


Awdry, Daniel
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Maginnis, John E.


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Goodhart, Philip
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest


Balniel, Lord
Goodhew, Victor
Marten, Neil


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Gorst, John
Mather, Carol


Batsford, Brian
Gower, Raymond
Maude, Angus


Beamish, Col, Sir Tufton
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Gray, Hamish
Mawby, Ray


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Green, Alan
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Benyon, W.
Grieve, Percy
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Biffen, John
Grylls, Michael
Miscampbell, Norman


Biggs-Davison, John
Gummer, Selwyn
Mitchell, Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W)


Blaker, Peter
Gurden, Harold
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Moate, Roger


Body, Richard
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Molyneaux, James


Boscawen, Robert
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Money, Ernle


Bossom, Sir Clive
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)



Bowden, Andrew
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Monks, Mrs. Connie


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Monro, Hector


Braine, Bernard
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Montgomery, Fergus


Bray, Ronald
Hastings, Stephen
More, Jasper


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Havers, Michael
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)


Brocklebank Fowler, Christopher
Hawkins, Paul
Morrison, Charles


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hay, John
Mudd, David


Bryan, Paul
Hayhoe, Barney
Murton, Oscar


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus,N&amp;M)
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Buck, Antony
Heseltine, Michael
Neave, Airey


Bullus, Sir Eric
Hicks, Robert
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Burden, F. A.
Higgins, Terence L.
Normanton, Tom


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Hiley, Joseph
Nott, John


Campbell, Rt.Hn.G.(Moray&amp;Nairn)
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Onslow, Cranley


Carlisle, Mark
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Holland, Philip
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Cary, Sir Robert
Holt, Miss Mary
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)


Channon, Paul
Hordern, Peter
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Chapman, Sydney
Hornby, Richard
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia
Paisley, Rev. Ian


Chichesler Clark, R.
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Parkinson, Cecil


Churchill, W. S.
Howell, David (Guildford)
Peel, John


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Percival, Ian


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hunt, John
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John


Clegg, Walter
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Cockeram, Eric
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Pink, R. Bonner


Cooke, Robert
James, David
Pounder, Rafton


Coombs, Derek
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Cooper, A. E.
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Jessel, Toby
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.


Cormack, Patrick
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Costain, A. P.
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Crouch, David
Jopling, Michael
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Crowder, F. P.
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Raison, Timothy


Curran, Charles
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Kershaw, Anthony
Redmond, Robert


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid.Maj.-Gen.James
Kilfedder, James
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Deedes. Rt. Hn. W. F.
Kimball, Marcus
Rees, Peter (Dover)


Dixon, Piers
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Dykes, Hugh
Kinsey, J. R.
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Eden, Sir John
Kirk, Peter
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Kitson, Timothy
Ridsdale, Julian


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Knox, David
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Emery, Peter
Lambton, Lord
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Farr, John
Lane, David
Rost, Peter


Fell, Anthony
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Royle, Anthony


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Russell, Sir Ronald


Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Le Marchant, Spencer
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Scott, Nicholas


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Scott-Hopkins, James


Fookes, Miss Janet
Longden, Gilbert
Sharples, Richard


Fortescue, Tim
Loveridge, John
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Foster, Sir John
Luce, R. N.
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Fowler, Norman
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Simeons, Charles


Fox, Marcus
McCrindle, R. A.
Sinclair, Sir George







Skeet, T. H. H.
Temple, John M.
Warren, Kenneth


Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Soref, Harold
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Speed, Keith
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Spence, John
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon,S.)
Wiggin, Jerry


Stainton, Keith
Tilney, John
Wilkinson, John


Stanbrook, Ivor
Trafford, Dr. Anthony
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)
Trew, Peter
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)
Tugendhat, Christopher
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Stokes, John
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin
Woodnutt, Mark


Stuttaford, Dr. Tom
van Straubenzee, W. R.
Worsley, Marcus


Sutcliffe, John
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Tapsell, Peter
Waddington, David
Younger, Hn. George


Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Walder, David (Clitheroe)



Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Wall, Patrick
Mr. Reginald Eyre and


Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)
Walters, Dennis
Mr Bernard Weatherill.


Tebbit, Norman
Ward, Dame Irene

Question accordingly negatived.

Orders of the Day — CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 2) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Orders of the Day — COAL INDUSTRY

6.43 p.m.

Mr. William Hamilton: I take this opportunity to call attention to the Supplementary Estimate for £100 million which is provided in connection with the future of the coal industry. This gives the House an opportunity for yet another debate on the future of this nationalised industry and the Government's attitude to publicly-owned industries.
The sum of £100 million referred to in this Supplementary Estimate represents only part of the cost of the Government's crass mishandling of the coal mining dispute. The Government thought that they could teach the miners a similar lesson to the one meted out to Post Office workers a year ago. They sought to impose their unofficial 8 per cent. norm on the public sector while standing helplessly by watching much higher pay awards in the private sector.
People like the nurses had to succumb without a fight, as did others in the weaker sections of the public sector, and the Government misunderstood, either through ignorance or malice or a combination of both, the determination of the miners, with the whole Labour Movement behind them, in their fight, as they and as we saw it, not against the National Coal Board but against the Government.
The Government miscalculated the enormous public support which the miners elicited and maintained, despite the inconvenience and hardship caused by the strike. The Tory Party, including the Prime Minister, tried to alienate that public sympathy by blowing up, out of all proportion to the immense scale of the operation, isolated cases of illegal picketing and the occasional rare use of physical violence, which none of my hon. Friends condones and which the provisions of the Industrial Relations Act re-

lating to picketing were designed to prevent.
The strike was the culmination of a long period of restrained frustration felt throughout the mining community, which had taken a lot on the chin from Governments of both political persuasions. I fully accept that the Labour Government were in part to blame for the frustration felt by the miners over the years.
The massive rundown of total manpower in the last decade or so, achieved with the minimum of industrial friction, represented a more peaceful revolution than any other country could have aspired to, but the material rewards for the miner for that achievement were very meagre indeed. I need not spell out the details. They were presented to the N.C.B. and the Government and finally accepted by the Government only after the Wilberforce Committee had sat for a few days.
The Guardian carried an article on 4th February by John Torode, which said:
Take a surface worker with two children. His current rate is £18 a week. Deduct income tax, national insurance, pension and union dues. He takes home £16·42. The offer would give him £20. Take away the bigger tax and national insurance contributions plus pension and union dues. He would take home £17·74. This is an increase of £1·32 or 8 per cent. The previous deal came into effect in November, 1970. The present settlement will be back-dated to November, 1971. In that period the cost of living index rose by 10 per cent. To make good that loss he would need an increase of 10 per cent, in take home pay, and that works out at £1·64–32p less than he has been offered.
It goes on to show how, taking into account all the means-tested benefits that they would lose in very many instances, and not only among the lower-paid, miners would be worse off in money terms and considerably worse off in real terms compared with what they had as a result of the previous offer.
Despite those facts—they must have been known to the Government; they were known to the N.C.B., although the board was helpless in the circumstances—on the Wednesday before he went on television, when addressing the Engineering Employers Federation about the strike, according to a report in theFinancial Times:
Mr. Heath forcefully argued that the lesson of recent events was that it was far better to achieve results by agreements and negotiation


rather than put them at risk by dispute, confrontation and even violence. In a direct criticism of the miners, he added, to loud applause: 
he would get loud applause from the employers—
'It cannot be a sensible or a responsible decision for one section of the community or its leaders, to endanger the life and livelihood of 50 million of their fellow citizens'.
When he made his subsequent broadcast, on 27th February, the Prime Minister went to even greater lengths of exaggeration and distortion of the facts, and was loudly criticised for that appearance on television by virtually all the public media. I need not quote them all. I shall quote just the Spectator, which is part of my regular reading these days. I quote one or two extracts from the issue of 4th March:
The Prime Minister's televised address to the nation last Sunday was a poor piece of workmanship. It was sloppy and shoddy, at times disingenuous and, on occasion, mendacious.
The hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) was even more forthright and colourful in his language—not about that appearance but about his Prime Minister in general; but it is not worth wasting the time of the House quoting him.

Sir Gerald Nabarro: It would be wasting time, because my observations on the quality of the Prime Minister's leadership were in no way related to the coal strike. They did not follow the coal strike. I castigated my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister for blacking out my television set at Broadway, Worcestershire, two minutes before he was due on the screen.

Mr. Hamilton: It was a general criticism of the ineptitude, not the dishonesty, of the Prime Minister. I accept that it was a much wider criticism than his dealings with the miners' strike.
The brutal truth is that the Tory Party in general has never understood, liked or sympathised with the mining community. There are no votes for them in the mining areas. There are no miners at Tory Party conferences. So we saw the thinly masked malice in the speeches made by Tories in the coal industry debate in the House on 10th March. The hon. Member for Torquay (Sir F. Bennett)—who is not in the Chamber—urged then, in what he presumed was a

reasoned Amendment to the original Motion by one of his hon. Friends, that the industry should be run down much more quickly than it had been hitherto. He was on the same line at Question Time today, saying that it was dangerous and difficult work, and so on
We know that the noises that hon. Members opposite make here are very different from the noises they make in their private committee rooms about the mining industry. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Kinsey) called the Wilberforce settlement "a blueprint for disaster". Other hon. Members were baying for the Government to starve these strikers into submission, coal-miners in particular, and their families, by withdrawing social security benefits. The hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) has done this strongly for months on end, not only about the miners but about every section of the community which exercises its inalienable right to withdraw its labour if there is no other way of getting what it ought to get.
The Prime Minister sought to imply that the miners had won by display of violence—almost associating the miners with the I.R.A.—against law and order, getting what they thought they should get and what the Prime Minister thought, by implication they ought not to get, by rebelling against law and order and against the overall national interest.
But all that is past history. We now have the future to face—and the bills. Large questions remain unanswered. When the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry made his statement on 6th March—on which the Supplementary Estimate is based on—the new financial structure which the Coal Board will have to face as a consequence of Wilberforce, he indicated that the Government were making a profound study of the various problems arising. Reading the OFFICIAL REPORT for that day, one finds that he talked about the impact on coal consumption, the impact on employment in the industry, the effect on the regions, the desriability of a national fuel policy, the impact on the coal industry, and so on.
I take the view—I speak only for myself—that it would be wholly unreasonable and unrealistic for us to expect definitive answers to any of those questions today, or for a considerable time. However, what we should be told farily


quickly is what the Government intend to do about the capital restructuring of the industry. The Government clearly must have been working on that for a considerable time, and it is very important that we should have some very quick answers on the subject. We are also entitled to a firm reassurance that for a long time to come the coal industry will—indeed, must—remain the main source of our total energy requirements.
On the regional question, I was interested to note that the Prime Minister, in his exchanges with M. Pompidou over the weekend, stressed the importance of adequate Community financing of a regional policy. As has been stated in the House time and again, the United Kingdom's coal industry is primarily in development areas—Scotland, the North-East and South Wales. I quote one or two figures to show the rundown of the coal mining industry in Scotland. The figures are not strictly comparable, but enough to suffice. In 1955, the number employed in mining and quarrying in Scotland was 100,800. In mid-1970, in mining alone, the figure was 40,000. One could say that, in effect, the figure has dropped in 15 years from 100,000 to 40,000, predominantly male jobs.
Therefore, the assurances for which I have asked are required the more so as we on this side of the House are well aware of the enormous pressures on the Government by industry and by their backbenchers to teach the miners a lesson for daring to challenge the principles on which the Government have been seeking to run their battle against inflation. They—particularly the back benchers—are still smarting after the recent comprehensive collapse of their economic policies, brought about in no small measure by events at Upper Clyde Shipbuilders and in the coal industry. They are putting tremendous pressure on the Government to get rid of or, at least, minimise industry's dependence on coal as its main energy-supplying fuel as quickly as possible. Tomorrow we may see the first indication that those back benchers have drawn blood; that is to say, tomorrow the Chancellor might say, "We will now reduce or abolish the tax on fuel oil".

Sir G. Nabarro: Jolly good.

Mr. Hamilton: The total revenue from that is approximately £120 million. That

concession would be—indeed, must be—the small change of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's largesse which the whole nation is expecting. He will not be doing what he is doing tomorrow because of the goodness of his heart but because of a million on the dole, brought about directly by his Government. He must get people to spend more and the only way he can do that is by putting money in their pockets, and to that end he will probably give £1,000 million away tomorrow.
A reduction in the fuel oil tax would not be welcomed by hon. Members who represent mining constituencies, although my constituency is not so dependent upon the mining industry as it used to be. In our view it would be extremely foolish and short-sighted to increase our dependence on foreign imported oil—especially Middle East oil—when the price of these imports is already increasing substantially and will continue to do so over the next few years. All other fuels are problematical as to costs and quantity, as the Under-Secretary said in the debate on 10th March. North sea gas and oil are unknown factors. The hon. Gentleman said that there were only 20 years of known reserves of natural gas, and that would supply about 15 per cent. of our—

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): What I think I said was that at the peak of supply it appeared that there would be about 20 years supply. After that, the amount of take would decline unless more discoveries were made.

Mr. Hamilton: I am sorry. I did not want to misunderstand or distort what the Under-Secretary said. He was implying that he did not know how much gas we would get from the North Sea and how many years it would last. That is the point that I am making. The same applies to oil from the North Sea. It would be the height of foolishness and short-sightedness to rely more and more on those fuels and less and less on the certain supply of indigenous fuels like coal. In addition to that, there is the impact on employment prospects because the coal industry is labour-intensive and the others are not—but I need not go further into that.
I wish to say a similar word about nuclear power. It is undeniably a big


disappointment, The forecasts that have been made seem to have erred on the side of optimism. It currently supplies only 3 per cent. of our total energy requirements and, as the Under Secretary said in the debate, Dungeness B station is four years behind schedule, and the cost is more than double the original estimate. The fast reactors are not expected before the 1980s. On natural gas from the North Sea, oil—particularly imported oil—and nuclear power, there are so many imponderables. We do not know how much we will get, how long it will last and what it will cost. For all these reasons the Government are probably wise not to attempt to publish even the most sketchy outline of future trends of total energy requirements or their distribution as between coal and other fuels.
I wish to refer to the implications of the Supplementary Estimate. My hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Harper), in an exchange after the Minister's statement a few weeks ago, referred to the treatment of redundant miners. The mining industry, in terms of human sacrifice and danger, compares very unfavourably even with the military forces. I can never understand why we choose to treat a miner who has served 50 years in a coal mine infinitely less generously than someone who served the same period in the Armed Forces. The Serviceman is at risk only when we are at war, or if he is sent to Ulster, but the miner faces a risk every day he goes down the pit.
The Government are laying great stress on the need for the extension of occupational pension schemes. The miners have an occupational pension scheme, but it is not worth the paper it is written on, and the people who negotiated it should be ashamed of themselves. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott) represents a mining constituency, and I should think he knows all about this.

Mr. John Nott (St. Ives): It is a mining constituency.

Mr. Hamilton: I know, but it is not coal. Those who negotiated the scheme ought to be ashamed of themselves—and I hope that the Government will exercise what influence they have to improve matters. They clearly had influence in the wage negotiations before Wilberforce, and if they can seek to adversely affect the

miners they can exercise a similar influence to provide a much more generous occupational pension scheme for these men. The miner now can retire after 40 years in the pit and be paid 30s. a week, and if he is on supplementary benefit 10s. of that will be deducted. That is an outrage against men who have spent so many years in one of the most dangerous industries, if not the most dangerous industry.
Paragraph 54 of the Wilberforce Report recommended that pension provision and redundancy payments should be reviewed. I hope that the Government will examine what is being done for the dockers and the railway men who are being encouraged to leave the industry by what, in terms of what they used not to get, are massive sums. Currently the dockers are being offered £2,000 each to get out of the industry. As far as I know, no miner has been offered that. If the industry is to be run down over the next few years we hope that it will be at a much slower rate than in the last ten years. The Government and the Coal Board together should offer £10,000 to a miner who wishes to retire at 50. That would do a good deal to soften such blows that might be aimed at the coalmining industry.

Mr. Joseph Harper: Would my hon. Friend consider making that provision retrospective?

Mr. Hamilton: My hon. Friend is doing not too badly as he is, but if he can persuade the Government to make it retrospective the least of opposition would come from me.
An obligation was placed on the Coal Board under the terms of the 1961 White Paper on the Financial and Economic Obligations of Nationalised Industries, Cmnd. 1337. In paragraph 60 Wilberforce says that the White Paper requires
surpluses to be sufficient to cover deficits on revenue account over a period of five years".
Wilberforce went on to point out that since the early 1960s, ever since the White Paper was produced and the statutory obligation was laid on it, the Coal Board has never been able to meet the objectives set by the Government, because it was unrealistic to expect it to do so. I hope that the Government will now think it


appropriate to enforce, if enforce they must, much more realistic obligations on the board.
We all understand the need to combat inflation, which is the enemy of everyone—not least the groups on small fixed incomes. But it is wrong and unacceptable to lay the burden for the solution of this problem on people like coalminers. They are a very special case. They were so regarded by Wilberforce and public opinion. Unless and until the Government pursue policies which are socially fair and economically wise they will not receive co-operation from organised labour like the miners and members of other unions. They will not receive the kind of co-operation that we all so much need if we are to get on top of the problem.
When the Government castigate us for supporting the miners, I remind them that we supported the miners just as, before the General Election, the Tory Opposition supported the claim of the doctors for a 30 per cent. increase when we were fighting the same battle as they are fighting now against inflation. That did not deter them from saying that the doctors should have a 30 per cent. increase. The miners' increase has been fully justified by Wilberforce, and it was fully supported by public opinion throughout the weeks of hardship. We can see the great difficulties that all Governments face in the battle against inflation.
If, tomorrow, the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not induce the feeling in the country that there is social fairness and equity among the various sections of the community, no matter how much cash he gives away in tax concessions he will be condemned, because until there is a belief among ordinary working people that the Government are imbued with a sense of social equity and fairness we shall not get on top of the seemingly intractable problem of inflation, with higher costs and reduced standards of living.

7.12 p.m.

Sir Gerald Nabarro: I address myself to the Supplementary Estimate of £100 million. Last year, addressing the annual luncheon of the Institute of Fuel, I asked the top body of fuel and power technologists in Britain whether it was possible for any managing director to run a company effectively and

efficiently if he knew that the duration of his office would be one year. Since the end of the war, approximately since the date of nationalisation, there have been 24 consecutive Ministers, of the two main parties, responsible for the coal industry. Their average occupancy of office is one year, and that is why the industry today is rudderless, without ministerial direction and with a Minister purporting to be in charge who refuses to publish his forward plans.
I shall not address myself to the causes of the coal mining strike, but only to the consequences and why the £100 million has become necessary, and why I object to the method of financing the losses and what should have been done, though because the debate is on the Consolidated Fund Bill I cannot vote against it. It is part of a compendium of measures, and therefore I can only vocally protest about the arrangements.
Of course, we all know that 50 per cent. of the output of coal in this country today goes to electricity power stations. Of course, we know that coals of a high ash content which cannot be burnt elsewhere can be burnt under power station boilers. Of course, we know that coal-fired power stations are highly economic and satisfactory if they are correctly sited. Of course, we know that marginally oil is cheaper than coal today as a source of energy for power stations. Of course, we know that nuclear energy is a trifle more expensive than coal or oil. These are all established facts.
What I object to most is that a power station must be planned seven years ahead, and there are no coal-fired power stations in course of construction in Britain today. So the first new coal-fired power station could not be brought into use until almost 1980 if it were ordered now. I question, therefore, how it is possible for the size of the coal industry to be determined by the managers within the industry, the National Coal Board, unless some direction is given and decisions are arrived at by the Government as to the type of fuel to be employed in the next generation of power stations in Britain. That is the first consideration to which we should be addressing ourselves in this debate.
The Minister responsible, my hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, resolutely refuses to


state what will be the pattern of power generation and the type of fuel employed during the next 10 years. This is likely to lead to heavy losses in the future. I do not take the view of the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) that the Government should not try to plan energy requirements ahead, nor do the coal-mining representatives in the Opposition take that view. They want what I want, which is a determination of the type of fuel to be employed in order that the coal industry may effectively plan its proper and economic size.
The size of the industry today is about an output of 140 million tons, of which about 70 million go to power stations. I shall not quibble about 1 million tons of coal one way or the other. The industry, with its 285,000 men employed, is going through a period of acute uncertainty. No engineering apprentice is likely to go into the coal industry for a career today, for he has no notion whatever of what will be ahead of him in 10, 15 or 20 years when he grows to maturity. No man may seek to rise in the coal industry and achieve executive or managerial capacity, 10, 15 or 20 years ahead because he has no knowledge whether coal will be entirely supplanted by oil or natural gas, or whether we shall have a coal industry in the form we have today. None of these facts is made known by the Government, who are responsible for the direction of the industry.
Last Friday I was delivered a large wadge of documents about North Sea oil and gas prospects during the next 30 years. Broadly, we were told that 75 per cent. of our oil requirements, based on today's consumption, might be derived from North Sea sources. But the requirement will undoubtedly grow a great deal within the next30 years. On top of that, there is the prospect of large quantities of natural gas. We do not know what will be the out-turn, as we cannot measure it effectively over the next 30 years ahead. We do not know what the price and cost of extraction will be during the next 30 years. We do not know whether many of the plots allotted to major oil and associated companies will be fruitful or otherwise.
It is a huge gamble as to what will come out of this major discovery. But

I fervently believe two sayings which have been implanted in my mind. The first is that of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport Industries during our years in opposition that this was the first piece of real luck Britain had had since the end of the war. I endorse that. The second was by Sir Henry Jones, when he said that the fields in the North Sea were of Texan dimensions.
All of this must have a profound effect on the future of the coal industry. It is futile to say that we can rely entirely on oil and gas from the North Sea or entirely on coal. It will have to be an admixture of the three fuels in order to succeed. I am anxious that the Government should state definitively how much of the market they propose to reserve for coal. The coal industry must be made effectively to compete with North Sea oil and gas, and can indeed do so, for most of our major consumption requirements.
The hon. Gentleman talked disparagingly of my Conservative colleagues and myself in the context of tomorrow's Budget. It was the present Speaker of the House of Commons who, when Chancellor of the Exchequer, put on the fuel oil duty. I was the first to protest clamantly about the distortion of the competitive forces in fuel and power. So strongly did I feel in 1961 that I took 23 of my colleagues into the "No" Lobby against the Government, as I would do again today if the same circumstances arose, because subsiding coal by placing a duty on fuel oil distorts the competitive forces of both fuels and is wholly injurious. When Mr. Speaker put on that duty, he said that it was for revenue purposes alone. But the following year, when my right hon. Friend the present Home Secretary became Chancellor of the Exchequer—in 1962—I pressed him so hard during the year, and so explained my dissatisfaction with the arrangements, that he confessed that it was not for revenue reasons at all but a measure of protection for the coal industry, which I regarded as wholly erroneous and wrong.

Mr. Harper: When the present Speaker put 2d. a gallon tax on oil, on 17thApril, 1961, he said quite definitely that is was for revenue purposes only.

Sir G. Nabarro: Yes, and the following year my right hon. Friend the present


Home Secretary, who had succeeded him as Chancellor, stood the whole matter on its head and said that it was not for revenue purposes but to protect the coal industry. He was decidely more honest than his predecessor in this context. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I have said it before. As it is all more than 10 years ago, it is ancient history.
The most effective contribution to stabilising prices which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer could make tomorrow would be to abolish fuel oil duty and remove the protection for the coal industry. The duty collects £135 million, so its removal would be a very important contribution indeed to stabilising prices when one considers that the electricity generating industry alone pays tens of millions of £s in fuel oil duty and that about 15 per cent. of all energy requirements in Britain are furnished from oil sources.

Mr. Eric G. Varley: The hon. Gentleman will recognise that the heavy oil duty not only helps coal but natural gas and nuclear power.

Sir G. Nabarro: Of course, it helps all of them—I agree. What I want to do, if we are to continue to subsidise the coal industry so heavily, is to make it compete on equal terms with other sources of energy. I thoroughly object to this Supplementary Estimate of £100 million and the Government's chosen method of financing the losses arising from the recent miners' strike. I will relate briefly how the Government have financed the losses.
First, the Government allowed the price of coal to rise by about 50p per ton, which is of the order of 7½ per cent. on the price of coal, thus breaking their solemn bond and undertaking to the C.B.I. to limit the advance in prices of nationalised industries to 5 per cent. It is now 5 per cent. plus 50 per cent., equals 7½ per cent., and that is a much larger figure than that contained in the undertaking given to the C.B.I.
Secondly, as a result of that increase in price of 50p per ton, £60 million is to be recovered from the market out of the £90 million which the miners' award will approximately cost. So, £60 million is to come from the market and £30 million from Government subsidy, inherent in this figure in the Supplementary

Estimate of £100 million; the other £70 million is additional working capital for the National Coal Board on account of the losses during the strike.
Had I had this agonising decision to make, I would have put the whole £90 million on the price. I would then have abolished the fuel oil duty and would have let these two basic fuels, both indigenous, compete freely one with the other. What have we got today? The rout as I call it, of Government policy for prices and incomes. The Government stand utterly defeated.
Everyone knows the Daily Telegraph man. He has a bowler hat, a rolled umbrella—

Mr. Michael McGuire: And a moustache.

Sir G. Nabarro: The Daily Telegraph man has no moustache. I read it only as a last resort.

Mr. Harper: What is your paper?

Sir G. Nabarro: The Morning Star, so I know what the Opposition are going to say to me before they say it.
The characteristics of Daily Telegraph man are well known—bowler hat, rolled umbrella—and his bête noire is the National Coal Board and the other nationalised industries. But he is a Conservative, is Daily Telegraph man, and thus, a couple of days after the miners' strike ended, I was deeply grieved, as Daily Telegraph man is a member of my party, to see—

Mr. Harper: That he had shot himself?

Sir G. Nabarro: He had not shot himself but almost the same thing. On the leading feature article on the centre page of the Daily Telegraph, written by Mr. Paul Einzig, there was the heading, "The Economic Men of Munich".

Mr. Harper: Only Paul could write that.

Sir G. Nabarro: But he was right. "Men of Munich" is a term which has a very special ring and connotation. We all know what it means. It means, running away; acknowledging defeat. It means £35 million for U.C.S. It means all the reversals of the "lame duck" policies. Whether in the private sector or in the public sector, all "lame ducks"


are now to be succoured by Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. William Hamilton: All flying.

Sir G. Nabarro: I am not sure whether they are flying or whether ducks normally fly, especially lame ones. But in this case, the outcome of the miners' strike and the outcome of the controversy about U.C.S. clearly denote not a change of direction in Government policy but exactly what I have described—a complete rout of the Government's policy for prices and incomes. We have to get out of this.
I cannot vote against the £100 million because it is part of the Consolidated Fund Bill, but I use this opportunity to proclaim my objections to this method of re-financing the National Coal Board. The whole of the miners' strike losses should have gone on the price of coal and the fuel oil duty should be abolished tomorrow. Then fuel oil—and natural gas as a corollary—and coal would have been able effectively to compete one with the other on equal terms. I am sorry that my hon. Friend has decided on the course which he has now adopted. I hope that we will not be confronted in the remaining years of Conservative Government with endless subsidies for nationalised industry, because this is what this £100 million amounts to—a subsidy for the Coal Board and it might as well be recognised as such.
It has already led to leading Opposition spokesmen, the right hon. Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. Harold Lever) for instance, proclaiming that the coal industry must be aided by abolition of all interest charges on its capital. That would be another subsidy. My hon. and right hon. Friends when in opposition did not say any of this. They promised no subsidies for nationalised industries. They promised to cause nationalised industries to conduct their affairs on a strictly commercial basis, not as a social welfare service. Now they are doing exactly the opposite. I shall not in future support or vote for any subsidy for any nationalised industry.

Mr. McGuire: What is puzzling me about the hon. Gentleman is that he seems only to be against subsidies for nationalised industries. Is he against the principle of subsidy generally? Why is he selective?

Mr. Harper: What about the farmers?

Sir G. Nabarro: I have to be selective in these matters. I cannot argue farming subsidies now. We are to end farming subsidies as part of the Common Market common agricultural policy. I am against all industrial subsidies, whether in the nationalised or private sector. That was the policy of my party when we sat in opposition and, so far as I am aware, there has never been any general consent from members of the Conservative Party to change that policy—until these special cases came along involving £100 million for the Coal Board and £35 million for U.C.S.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Fife, West for providing this parliamentary opportunity to express a Conservative view on the derangement of the Coal Board's finances and the utter inadequacy of a policy of subsidies by the central Government to prop up an industry which I believe should be caused effectively to compete with oil and other sources of energy.

Mr. Peter Rees: My hon. Friend said that the whole of the consequences of the miners' strike should have been faced by an increase in the price of coal. Earlier he said that the proposed increases of 7 per cent. were a breach of the contract between the Government and the C.B.I. Would he tell us how he reconciles those positions?

Sir G. Nabarro: We have to face the fact that the C.B.I. initiative has been busted. It cannot be renegotiated, whether in terms of railway fares, coal charges, electricity or anything else. It has been busted by this Government's decision to subsidise the coal industry by £100 million and to allow prices to rise by 7½ per cent. Thus I say we have the worst of all worlds. It would have been far better to put the lot on the price and free us from the fuel oil duty, which would have allowed effective competition.

7.35 p.m.

Mr. Alex Eadie: I, too, welcome this opportunity to speak on the Supplementary Estimate. The hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) said that he welcomed the opportunity to put a Conservative point of view. I wonder whether hon. Gentlemen opposite realise the damage they


have done by condemnation of the miners and of Wilberforce. The miners were condemned because they were not prepared to consider arbitration; they were being difficult. The Government set up Wilberforce which made a pronouncement favourable to the miners. If hon. Gentlemen carry on with this hymn of hate against the miners they will do great damage to the industry.
It will be impossible to have rational discussions about wage settlements if it is thought that the Government are concerned only about tribunals and arbitrations which make findings favourable to them. The whole of industrial relations will go by the board, and in this sense the Government are doing a great disservice to industry and industrial relations. If they persist there is not a single worker who will have any faith in them.
There has been an attack on violence during the strike. There were some incidents then with which some of us would not wish to be associated, but we have to remember that there were over 280,000 miners on strike. An article in the Sunday Times exploded this myth of violence. In the latter part of the 19th century, during a miners' dispute, 80 people were arrested and three killed. Nothing like that happened during this strike. If hon. Gentlemen opposite try to hang their hat on the peg of violence they are on a very thin wicket.
The biggest picket took place at this House when I and some of my hon. Friends took part. It was a new thing in the sense that miners' wives took part. The miners were angry and they thought they had a claim. The police at Tower Hill told us that there were 14,000 in that demonstration. What was the violence? One person arrested. Even the Conservative Party could not lobby this House and do better than that.
The hon. Member for Worcestershire, South mentioned the Daily Telegraph and, in an aside, the Morning Star. I must comment on this. We had a lot of interesting comments from the Daily Telegraph during the dispute. Some insulting things were said about the intelligence of the miners and their leaders. There was talk about stupidity. There were even some snide comments about miners' representatives in this House.
Honourable Gentlemen opposite and people who write in the Daily Telegraph believe that the acid test of industry is efficiency, and that anyone who is not efficient should be sacked. On the evidence of what the Daily Telegraph wrote about the miners' strike the staff of the Daily Telegraph should all be sacked. I am not a regular reader of the Morning Star but that newspaper was "spot on" in its diagnosis of the strike and reported it much more efficiently than did the Daily Telegraph. The hon. Member for Worcestershire, South must agree that the staff of the Morning Star should be promoted and the staff of the Daily Telegraph sacked.

Sir G. Nabarro: The hon. Gentleman misses the point. I read the Morning Star to ascertain in advance what will be the arguments used against me by Socialist Members of Parliament.

Mr. Eadie: If the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South had read the Morning Star during the miners' strike as diligently as he suggests he would have been more accurate in his diagnosis than he has been in debates in the House.
The conversion of coal-fired power stations to alternative forms of fuel has been suggested. One hon. Gentleman had the temerity to ask the Minister to consider converting coal-fired stations to nuclear-powered stations, which is an impossibility. This illustrates the depth of knowledge of some hon. Gentlemen.

Sir G. Nabarro: Not me.

Mr. Eadie: The hon. Member for Worcestershire, South is an exception. There are not many hon. Members who have as much knowledge of this subject as he has.
What has happened to the Chapman Pincher Report, which broke during the miners' strike? I appreciate that it would have been inopportune during the miners' strike for the Government to say that in discussing energy requirements they had discovered that all previous Governments had made a miscalculation about the future of coal, and that coal had a bigger part to play than was thought. But this story was headlined as a Cabinet leak and the Minister must tell us about it at some time. How did the Government arrive at this decision? Was it done


through the "think tank", and what are the facts and figures?
The hon. Member for Worcestershire, South spoke of the £135 million fuel oil tax and of standing things on their head. But he is doing the same thing. The £135 million fuel tax is not a subsidy to the mining industry; the Chancellor of the Exchequer gets the money. The hon. Gentleman appealed to the Chancellor to do away with the fuel oil tax, but one does not have to be an economist to realise that if the Chancellor does away with £135 million revenue tomorrow that money will have to come from somewhere else.

Mr. Bob Brown: I am sure my hon. Friend will appreciate that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has already earmarked an alternative source for a good part of that £135 million. If he phases out the fuel tax he will replace the revenue from that by the profits made by increasing rents under the Housing Finance Bill.

Mr. Eadie: That will be a matter for the Chancellor. He is in purdah; the whole nation is awaiting tomorrow with bated breath. I hope that the Chancellor will be a bit soft-hearted on council rents.
We on this side of the House who have associations with the coal mining industry welcome the oil finds in the North Sea. We are glad that this country has an indigenous source of oil, but nobody in his right mind will suggest that this oil will be cheap. It will be costly, but even so the nation requires the oil. I hope that we shall be able to meet 100 per cent. of our oil requirements from indigenous sources by 1980.
The Minister must squarely face the strategic problems not only in the Middle East but in the North Sea. Oil pipelines are easy to sever. We are an island, and vulnerable and strategic considerations apply. We know that the world is using more oil than it is finding. All fossil fuels are wasting assets and we of this generation must carefully consider and plan our energy resources.
In the matter of energy requirements we have a responsibility to future generations. Nuclear power may well come more to the fore, but this will happen in the 1980s rather than in this decade. It

can be said with truth that if we apply the same sort of cost argument to the mining industry as we apply to nuclear power, then nuclear power has been an expensive failure.
I hope that the Minister would consider these various factors. It may be that the world will have a requirement for oil in terms of the growing of food, a great deal of important scientific work has been done in this respect. Therefore, we cannot afford to look at the problems of energy and the use of fossil fuels in a narrow sense, but rather we should consider them in a global sense.
I also hope that the Minister will say how he proposes to implement the Wilber-force recommendations in making proper provision for miners' pensions. We shall not accept the argument that the right way to solve the problem is by introducing retirement at 60 without proper recompense for the person concerned. If miners are to be retired early without proper financial arrangements being made, it will merely mean that at 60 they will be receiving an unemployment pension. This will certainly be unacceptable to the miners. In conclusion, I should like to express my thanks for having been given this opportunity to make a few comments on the Supplementary Estimate.

7.53 p.m.

Mr. Adam Butler: I should first like to inform the House that my reading matter includes the Daily Telegraph, the Daily Mirror and the Morning Star. Furthermore, my headgear is sometimes as various and at other times nonexistent. Having referred somewhat lightly to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro), I hope to return to his speech a little later.
I begin with the favourite opening of hon. Members opposite in a coal mining debate in which they say that we on this side of the House have no great sympathy for the coal mining industry, and there are no votes to be found in that sector. I totally refute this argument, particularly from a personal angle, and I would be prepared to guarantee that votes are to be found in that industry.
We have sympathy, but we also have something that seems to be lacking among Opposition Members—a sense of realism in our approach to this subject.


A wage of £35 for a face worker does not seem to be too much money for the job that is undertaken. Today we read that the militant section of the National Union of Mineworkers will be looking again next year for substantial increases and a figure of £40 for those workers is mentioned. I suggest that in the context of the present wage structure, a figure of £40 is not necessarily wrong for face workers. But even a figure of £35 will put out of work thousands of miners. If £40 were to be granted this would cost many thousand more jobs in the industry. This is the realism of the matter and this is where I go part of the way with my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South.
My quarrel with the Supplementary Estimate is that it absorbs part of the wage increase. A strike in private industry must be paid for by private industry. The company concerned must meet the cost of the strike and the cost of the wage claim, if any, that is granted, and sometimes goes out of business because it cannot afford it. Most often it puts up the price and the public has to pay.
In this case the Government have chosen to carry part of the cost of the strike. Again the public pays because the £100 million which will be voted in this Bill comes from the taxpayer. I query whether it is right for the taxpayer to carry the cost of the strike in this way. Even if a compromise can be found—and it might be logical to suggest that the cost of the strike in terms of loss of production might be carried—it would be wrong to carry part of the cost of an additional wage increase.
My hon. Friend said that a figure of 7½ per cent. broke the C.B.I. initiative. I suggest that since the settlement was a "special case", then an increase in price above 5 per cent. should also be treated as a special case. If the correct mathematics for a £90 million wage settlement was a 10 per cent. price increase, or more, this should have been added to the price of coal.

Mr. Eadie: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that Wilberforce was too generous?

Mr. Butler: That was not the run of my argument. I was saying that a wage increase should be found through the

price of the product, not through subsidies in other ways via the taxpayer. The logic of Conservative philosophy must lie in the sort of competition mentioned by my hon. Friend. However, I do not go the whole way with him. I believe there must be some Government aid, but it must be aid aimed at helping to bring about a slim and efficient industry which can compete. Some aid too is necessary to safeguard the strategic national interests. We cannot risk being dependent to too great an extent for very much longer on foreign oil.
We are uncertain how much natural gas we can draw on in the years ahead. We are uncertain how much oil is available to us, as to its quality, and whether it will be suitable for power stations. We are also uncertain about the duration of that supply.
But we can be certain that some of our fuel requirements will come from these new sources. We can be certain that our dependence on coal must grow less. This means that the coal industry must contract. It has hastened its own contraction by obtaining a wage increase of the sort we have seen. If it aims to achieve a further increase of the same magnitude, it will further hasten its contraction.
What is not commonly known is that even the most efficient pits such as those found in my constituency are not at the moment profitable. As a result of the industry's pricing structure, the quality of coal which is mined in my pits and which goes to power stations does not attract a price sufficient to show an adequate profit, and although ours are the most efficient pits in the country, we are not producing profitably. If that is the case in my area, can we believe that there is a profit in the coal mined in, for instance, the pits in the constituency of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Peter Rees)?

Mr. Peter Rees: Certainly.

Mr. Butler: I doubt it.

Mr. Rees: It is true that the East Kent coal field has been continuously in the red since the war, with one exception. However, it is hoped that, with the insatiable demand for coking coal, which can be supplied from East Kent, there is a profitable future. However, that depends on the people who work there


and those who lead them. What the future brings is up to them.

Mr. Butler: I too, hope that there is a profitable future for mining in Kent and in other areas as well. However, the train of my argument is to the contrary, and when as distinguished and as honourable and dedicated a servant of the coal industry as Lord Robens says, as he did in the last few days, that 50,000 jobs in the coal industry must go, I am inclined to believe him ahead of many others.

Mr. Eadie: Why?

Sir G. Nabarro: My hon. Friend says that the coal industry must contract. When he says that, he is speaking for himself alone. He is not speaking for me. Whether or not the coal industry contracts depends entirely on Government policy. As one half of all the coal is burned in power stations, we may well see an expansion of the industry if the Government decide to invest in several coal-fired power stations.

Mr. Butler: I am not sure that my hon. Friend is quite following my line of thought. If the Government are prepared to do that and are not prepared to invest in convertible power stations, which is the safer and wiser policy, there will be an assured market for coal in the future, but it will be running at a greater loss or at a greater degree of subsidisation than anything that we have had in the past. This, in the context of the potential for fuel energy supplies for the future, would, in my view, be wrong.
I intended to intervene only briefly. I have made my points. I hope that I have expressed regret at what I see as the certain outcome for future employment in the coal industry. It is one of contraction. But I believe in the long run it is right that the industry should pay high wages. It should be sufficiently profitable to do so. Without massive Government subsidisation, which I reject, this can only be achieved by operating fewer pits at a profitable level.

8.5 p.m.

Mr. Edward Milne: The hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Adam Butler) for some part of his speech dwelt on the supposed impending contraction of the mining industry. He followed the

Tory trend in the weeks after the Wilber-force Report by appearing to lecture to the miners that they should not have applied for a wage increase at all since all they were doing was running themselves out of their jobs.
It should be said about any impending contraction of the industry that, unlike its contraction in the past, any future contraction must be preceded by the attraction and introduction of new jobs to the development districts in which, for the most part, the mining industry is situated. It is only by that and by gearing it to the fact that we move towards full employment rather than towards higher unemployment that the problems of the mining industry and of our fuel economy can be met.
I was disappointed to hear the hon. Gentleman quote with seeming agreement the prediction of the ex-Chairman of the National Coal Board that the victory of the mineworkers in the recent wage dispute would lead to the loss of 50,000 jobs. I believe that this will seem to be as accurate a statement as a great deal of the sunshine talk that we heard from Lord Robens over the 10 years that he was in the industry. If many of his statements during his term of office had been as accurate as they were claimed to be, the dispute through which we have just passed and the consequences of it would not have needed to be visited upon the nation.
I wish to deal briefly with the Supplementary Estimate of £100 million. It is being spoken of in certain quarters as if it was some sort of subsidy to the Coal Board. However, it is only an instrument to enable the Coal Board to clear one of its immediate financial hurdles. In terms of interest charges and other consequences, it is a further millstone round the neck of the industry. I hope that we shall hear from the Minister not so much about the strike and the likely consequences of it as about the future rôle of coal in our fuel economy and how the Government intend to deal with its finances.
When we talk about the contraction of coal, we must not forget the great number of imponderables attached to it. The Government speak optimistically about an expansion of industry which will lead to a rising demand on our energy


requirements. At the moment, in terms of the four fuels supplying our energy requirements, no one can make any accurate forecast of demand for the foreseeable future. It would be a major disaster if the Government used the consequences of the recent coal dispute to run down coal in some way to punish the miners for having dared to ask for something approaching a decent living wage.
We want to know not just the effects of the Supplementary Estimate on the coal industry but its likely effect on the overall energy requirements of the nation for at least the next decade. While there may be some small reduction in the industry's production figures in the coming decade, in my view it will be considerably less than people anticipate.
In the mid-1960s it was said that by 1975 coal's contribution to our energy requirements would have reached just under 80 million tons. I believe that that figure is much lower than will be needed in the next five to 10 years to provide the fuel that the nation requires.
I come back to the Supplementary Estimate. Ought we not to be looking at the coal industry itself, the method of its financing, and so on? The hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) spoke about the claim by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. Harold Lever) during the dispute—not so much a claim, but an appeal—for the £900 million of outstanding debt to be wiped off. This is a matter which the Government must look at. The outstanding debt is now £950 million. The Government should look at that matter not merely because of an appeal on the part of the coal industry to have this load taken off its shoulders, but because it would also be of advantage to the nation.
We talk about the financial demand on the industry as though it were a subsidy. Are we not forgetting that the people who have made the real contribution to British mining, by spending their working lives in the industry, receive from the Coal Board each year a pension contribution of just over £13 million, whereas the interest charges on the money which the Coal Board receives rate an annual tribute of well over £30 million? In short, it is better to have loaned money to the Coal Board than to make

a contribution to the stability of Britain's mining industry when measured in those terms.
Ought we not also to look at the structure of the Coal Board itself and the running costs of the industry? The cost of the production of coal, the improvements in output, and all the other records that the miners have achieved in the last 25 years have failed to give them the wage level to which they are properly entitled, and even the Wilberforce award has left them far short of achieving it.
The hon. Member for Bosworth talked about a likely further claim by the N.U.M. in 12 months' time. The N.U.M. will be doing no more than Wilberforce was inviting it to do. The lesson and logic of the Wilberforce recommendations was that this wage increase was merely a halting stage on the way to seeing that no longer was the mining industry and the need for coal regarded by the nation as obtainable at the expense of low wages in the industry. Therefore, if Wilberforce has any meaning or logic, it is for a further wage application by the N.U.M. within 12 months. It is not, as some hon. Members opposite have indicated, a question of holding the nation to ransom. The Wilberforce Report is the key not only to the next wage demand by the N.U.M., but to a future stable coal industry.
This is why I believe that either this or the next Government must look at the structure of the National Coal Board. Is it top heavy? Is it too over-manned at the top at national level? Do we still need the National Coal Board headquarters in London when the industry is situated elsewhere? Would it not be better to have the industry operated on a regional or area basis with only small overall supervisory control from the centre, instead of the massive, somewhat unwieldy, organisation which we have at present?
I do not profess to argue that this is the answer. I suggest that we need to look at those matters as well as the financial requirements and provisions which are necessary for the industry in the years ahead. Therefore, we must go beyond a debate in the House of Commons. We must ensure that the Government either set up a Royal Commission on the industry to examine the points which have been and will be raised in the debate, or produce a White Paper on the


industry and on the nation's future fuel and energy requirements. To fail to do this would be little short of disastrous not only in the interests of the mining industry and the mining communities, but in the best interests of the nation.
In addition to looking at these matters—I hope that the Minister will deal with this point in his speech—we ought to look at the assets already held by the Coal Board. For instance, why is it that people who lived in Coal Board houses a number of years back on a rent-free basis—not that they were living in those houses rent-free in the terms that many of us would consider "rent-free" to mean, but because rent-free housing was part of the wages structure of the industry which these people were serving—are now paying rents of well over £2·50? Those houses, now older and in some cases category C houses which cannot be brought up to proper standards, are fetching rents for the Coal Board, or some of the landowners to whom they have been handed back, of well over £2·50 and there is talk of raising the rents of those houses to well over £3·50 for retired miners. Therefore, the assets available to the Coal Board and the means of using them to further enhance the interests of the industry require the Government's immediate attention.
I hope that this will not be regarded by the Government as just another debate on the mining industry and that they can forget about the issue until it rears its head again. Let us have positive proposals and action from this moment.

8.20 p.m.

Mr. Peter Rees: I had not intended to intervene in this debate, and I apologise for doing so to those who have spoken, but any coal debate has a compulsive, perennial fascination for anyone who has the privilege to represent a constituency with even a small seam of coal in it, and therefore I hope that the House will forgive me if I take up a little of its time.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Milne) made an attack on Lord Robens, whom I have always regarded, at any rate during the period after he left the House, as a distinguished public servant. However, I have no doubt that Lord Robens can look after himself.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: He always has done.

Mr. Rees: The hon. Gentleman has, however, emphasised one important fact which did not escape the notice of the miners in my constituency. It is that six of the 10 years during which Lord Robens presided over the destinies of the National Coal Board were years when we had a Labour Administration, and it was particularly in those years that the miners lost their place in the industrial pecking order. That fact has not escaped the notice of miners in my constituency in Aylesham, Elvington, and similar places.

Mr. Skinner: It is true that the miners did, to some extent, lose their place in the pecking order during those years but does the hon. and learned Gentleman remember—perhaps he does not—that the lowest-ever wage increase offered to the miners during the administration of Lord Robens, as a result of going to arbitration, was l0d. a day, during the period of the Tory Government?

Mr. Rees: If it was accepted, presumably the mining industry felt that it was justified. If it was not accepted, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to enlarge on the point that he is making.
The hon. Member for Blyth dragged across the trail that rather old and pungent red herring about borrowings from the Government by the board. What the hon. Gentleman did not emphasise—and, frankly, hon. Gentlemen opposite rarely emphasise this—is that four-fifths of Government borrowings have been written off over the last five years and the interest on the outstanding borrowings, substantial though it must be by any standard, being £30 million, is not ultimately going to make or break this great industry.
As regards the rents of houses owned, or once owned, by the board, if the rents go up, then, in view of what the hon. Gentleman said about pensions paid to people who formerly worked in the coal industry, I am confident that they will be eligible for rent rebates because of the far-sighted Measure which the Government have introduced and are still fighting through Committee.
It was not those small points that I wanted to take up. I tell the hon. Gentleman that on his major contribution—a


far-reaching review of the industry—I find myself almost entirely in agreement with him. I shall come to that in due course.
This Supplementary Estimate is an inevitable consequence of the acceptance by the board of the Wilberforce Committee's recommendations. Tonight I shall not analyse or quarrel with Lord Wilberforce's recommendations. I have never believed in quarrelling with a referee, or even with the Chair in this House.

Mr. Skinner: I have never been known to do that.

Mr. Rees: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am delighted to hear of the unequivocal acceptance of your rulings by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). I hope that that will give you great comfort in the days to come.
The Wilberforce Committee's conclusions and their acceptance involved a measure of strain on the industry, or on the finances of the country. It was inevitable, with the financial structure of the industry as it was before Wilberforce, that the recommended increases could not be absorbed, and therefore there were four inevitable consequences. The consequences could have been mixed anyway, and it may be that the board will have to adopt a mixture of all four.
First, inevitably, there would have to be a rise in the price of coal. Indeed, we have heard that it is to be a rise of about 7½ per cent. I put it to my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) that there was a certain inconsistency in the position that he took up and that he was not able, as I thought, entirely to reconcile his complaint that these price increases break the compact between the Government and the C.B.I. with his statement, in the next breath, that the whole consequences of Wilberforce should have been absorbed by increases in the price of coal. I felt that it was inevitable that there should be an increase in the price of coal, but that 7½ per cent. was perhaps the maximum that could readily be absorbed without grave inflationary effects and a gross breach of the compact negotiated between the C.B.I. and the Government, so I do not quarrel with that.
The second inevitable consequence was that there should be a Government subvention to the N.C.B. That is the point of the Supplementary Estimate. The other two possible consequences—and we have yet to discover whether they are inevitable—are, first, a reduction of loss-making pits. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have talked about that. If there are to be reductions, hon. Gentlemen opposite are right to emphasise that alternative forms of employment should be found for the people in those pits. Finally, there should be an increase in productivity, because if there were an impressive increase the Wilberforce bill might more readily be met.
I have always believed that the coal industry should be a competitive industry, paying competitive wages. The corollary to paying competitive wages—I hope that hon. Gentlemen opposite will accept that competitive wages will now be paid—must be a competitive industry. We have made a start, but I shall press my hon. Friend for a fundamental review, with the board, of the industry and of all the consequences of the Wilberforce Report. That is where I find myself in total agreement with the hon. Member for Blyth. Whether or not it should be by Royal Commission I do not care, but I hope that there will be a far-reaching and fundamental review of the industry.
I conclude by setting out some of the points that I consider to be important. First, what is the right size of the industry? This opens up all sorts of fundamental questions which it probably would not be proper to debate tonight. What is the right mix between various sources of power? Hon. Gentlemen opposite have touched on that. It is just one of the fundamental questions that have to be considered.
Indeed, Lord Wilberforce touched on that issue, because he said that there was nothing sacrosanct in the figure of 140 million tons a year, He said that it might have to go down to 90 million tons. I am in no position to say—and I do not know whether hon. Gentlemen opposite are—what exactly is the right figure. That is something that we have to consider both in the national context and in the context of the industry itself. If it is to be a small industry, which pits have to close? Which pits can we no longer afford to maintain?
I am sure that hon. Gentlemen opposite will recognise that over the last 10 to 20 years there has been a certain welfare aspect about the N.C.B. From speaking to miners in my constituency, I know that many of them recognise that. They say, "We do not want to work in pits if there is no real contribution from them to the economy", but they add that if pits are to be closed they want some alternative form of employment. These are important questions, but we cannot answer them tonight. They can be considered dispassionately only in a long-term review of the industry.
There is a worry among many who work in the industry and look at it from outside that coal is not priced realistically. I have no means of checking, but I have been told that some grades of coal are sold to industry at below the cost of production. The national interest may be involved in damping down the fires of inflation, but this is a fundamental question which the Government and the N.C.B. should consider.
Are the profit margins of retailers too high? A dispassionate inquiry may show that they are not. When a member of the National Union of Mineworkers in my constituency, Mr. Jack Dunn, wrote to a prominent member of the retail trade that the retail profit margins were too high, the powerful reply that he received demonstrated that the retail side has contracted more rapidly than mining it self. I should like to see this question disposed of, if not once and for all at least for our generation. Is the retail industry making too much profit? Should there be more competition? Is competition fair betwen the private retailer and the retail division of the N.C.B.?
I know that productivity has almost doubled since 1947, from 20 cwt. to 40 cwt. per man shift. That reflects great credit on those who work in the industry, but it also reflects massive capital investment. Would a further massive injection of capital, further mechanisation, yield equally impressive results? [Interruption.] Some hon. Gentlemen obviously think not, but if not, the industry should not look for further Government subventions.
We should also consider absentee ism—

Mr. Skinner: In this place?

Mr. Rees: In this place or any other place, but tonight we are considering the coal industry. I do not know whether the hon. Member thinks that he earns his salary. That is a question between him and his conscience—or between him and his constituents. He should answer that question at another time and in another place.
If we are to have competitive wages we must have a competitive industry, and the problem of absenteeism should be looked at. There may be a perfectly rational explanation. Perhaps we ask too much of those who work below ground. That is not. a question to be answered here, because the atmosphere is too feverish. There should be a cool inquiry by the National Coal Board or an outside body.
I want something constructive to come from this debate, as it did from our debates on the coal strike. I want to see a better industry—perhaps leaner, or fitter. If we are to pay these wages and ask men to do this work, we must ask whether they are producing the right kind of coal, in the right way, in the right place, and at the right time.
The country has been asked to pick up the cheque for the coal strike, so the country is entitled to know whether we have the right coal industry. Is this great industry, which is still fundamental to our economy, being run in the right way? I hope that the Minister will give us some of his thoughts on these important questions, if not tonight, at some other time.

8.33 p.m.

Mr. Joseph Harper: We should not have been discussing this Supplementary Estimate had it not been for the Government's appalling attitude in allowing the miners' strike to take place and then allowing it to continue for seven weeks. Not many right hon. and hon. Members opposite will agree with that assertion, but it is true. The strike could have been settled much earlier, at much below the ultimate cost.
We keep knocking the industry, yet the following figures are relevant: 100,000 of the 278,000 male employees are under 40; 178,000 are over 40; nearly 70,000 of those 178,000 are over 55. Therefore, in ten years' time, providing that we do not knock the industry too much, we


shall have a much younger work force than we have at present.
The hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) made an interesting and eloquent speech, in almost his usual rocking horse style—he rocks backwards and forwards as he orates. However, the hon. Gentleman was not his usual self tonight. I thought that he was irresponsible. I am relieved and thankful that during the hon. Gentleman's speech I did not notice the Minister give one nod of agreement with what the hon. Gentleman was saying.
The hon. Member for Worcestershire, South talked glibly about the 2d. a gallon tax on oil. The present Mr. Speaker was Chancellor of the Exchequer in April, 1961, when that increase was imposed. The increase was imposed not to protect the men in the industry, nor to protect the coal industry, but to raise revenue. The revenue was estimated to be £50 million in that year and £60 million in the following year. It has been said tonight that the resulting revenue is now £135 million. The hon. Gentleman asks for the removal of that 2d. a gallon tax so that oil can be competitive with coal
The hon. Gentleman did not make great play of the fact that the miners' recent wage increase will result in the price of coal being increased by 7½ per cent. I have never known a Government act so stupidly in imposing an increase because they wanted to convince the country that this was the result of the miners' strike and the increased wage award.

Mr. Adam Butler: Does the hon. Gentleman disagree with the increase in the price of coal or merely with the rapidity with which it was imposed? I hope that he acknowledges that, in the words of the Leader of the Opposition, one man's wage increase is another man's price increase.

Mr. Harper: We have heard all that tripe before. We have heard all the tripe about one man's wage increase being another man's redundancy. If anybody knows anything about redundancy, it is we in the mining industry, because since 1949 no fewer than 490,000 of our people have been made redundant. I am not disagreeing with the price increase of 7½ per cent.; we realised that the price of coal would have to be increased. That

was the point that I was coming to before the hon. Gentleman jumped on to the table before the dinner was ready.
Some months ago I obtained some figures—the figures are now a little out of date—relating to the price of coal that we import. These figures must be seen in the context of an increase of 7½ per cent. on the price of indigenous coal. These are the sort of prices we must pay for coal from other countries: from Australia, £9·2; from Belgium, £20·46; the Irish Republic, £8·21; Netherlands, £9·92; Norway, £30; Poland, £10·46; South Africa, £35·95; the United States. £9·32; and West Germany, £21·52.

Mr. Peter Rees: The hon. Gentleman will agree that those figures are meaningless unless they are related to grades of coal.

Mr. Harper: I agree. The figures were given to me by the Department. The pithead price of United Kingdom-produced coal varies between £4·50 and £15.

Mr. Skinner: Does my hon. Friend recall that when he was given those figures some months ago in reply to a Parliamentary Question it was made clear at the time that the grades of coal to which they referred were those required not for general use but for the British Steel Corporation, which are low grades, and for the Central Electricity Generating Board, which requires a type of coal that we in Britain can produce for less than £4?

Mr. Harper: Yes. The figures I quoted relate to some of the cheapest grades of coal.
We have said time and again that the prosperity of the nation in the post-war years was built on coal at a reasonable price. We missed the boat because of that. It is all very well for hon. Gentlemen opposite to talk about a free market, but if we had got the price we could have charged for the coal we produced after the war—we could have asked for the moon at that time, and got it—the industry would not now be in this state. We would not have needed to ask the last Labour Minister for £415 million and something over £400 million from the present Minister to put the industry on a proper footing. But that


is water under the bridge. There is nothing more dead than a pit that is finished, closed and not producing coal.
I take issue with my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton)—I seldom have to do this—over what he said about the pension of £1·50 in the mining industry. But he was right to say that those who were responsible for arranging the pension should have their heads examined. I was one of them. Not only should we have our heads examined; we should be certified for falling in the way we did. In the first place, it was £1. It was recently increased to £1·50, but as the supplementary benefit grabs the 50p, it is fair to say that the N.C.B. scheme is subsidising the Department.
In 1952 we got two weeks holiday with pay for the first time in the history of coal mining. We had had many weeks holiday without pay—too many to count—and the N.C.B. said "If you are prepared to work the second week, we will pay you your week's holiday money and whatever you earn, and we will put £2 million into a pension fund to start you off on a pension scheme." We fell for it.

Mr. Skinner: It will not happen again.

Mr. Harper: You can bet on that.
Some of our old people got payments straight away for little or nothing—except 50 years' endeavour in the pits—worth 10s. a week. That was increased to £1 and later to £1·50. Wilberforce pointed out that there should be a review not only of redundancy payments but of pension rights.

Mr. McGuire: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding us about that scheme. Will he explain that for those miners who fell between both stools and did not qualify for the 1952 scheme, we in the industry paid a couple of coppers a week, without subsidy from anyone, to give them an admittedly small pension but one which was much prized?

Mr. Harper: That is correct. That had escaped my memory. I have made the point crystal clear. Much has been said about the need for a fuel policy. We have tried repeatedly for this. The Minister's predecessors did something about a fuel policy of £250 million by

1970, and the money was borrowed on that projection. That is why we are faced with all our troubles. My right hon. Friend brought out his fuel policy in 1967. That has been proved hopelessly wrong. Whether it is the present Government or a future Labour Government who try to get a fuel policy, they will be faced with a difficult problem. It is not as simple as is thought by the hon. and learned Member for Dover (Mr. Peter Rees), as a past town clerk, preparing his budget estimates in the April or May meeting of his council. It is full of so many imponderables.

Mr. Peter Rees: The hon. Gentleman could not have been listening to my speech. It is because of the difficulty of it that I suggested that we were not likely to evolve any answer this evening and that we should have a cool, dispassionate view outside the House. Everything the hon. Gentleman has said confirms my view that we are not in a mood tonight to reach conclusions.

Mr. Harper: No one is cooler than I am. I never get het up about these things. I have been trained for years in a hard school and my feelings never show. I was once described as speaking with great emotion in the House. It was not emotion; I had a bad attack of influenza and my voice had cracked.
I address myself to the future fuel policy. On 21st December there was a meeting between the National Executive Committee of the National Union of Mineworkers and the Chairman of the National Coal Board and other officials. The pattern of energy policy was laid down, for which I shall read the figures. Within a decade it will remove our utter dependence on oil from the Middle East.
The total energy consumption in 1971 was the equivalent of 330 million tons of coal. These are the Coal Board figures. They show that by 1980—say 10 years hence—we shall need the equivalent of 430 million tons of coal. There is another imponderable here. If we have a continuation of a Conservative Government until then, we shall not need the equivalent of 430 million tons. It will be much less than that. But, to be fair, it is 430 million tons, of which coal provides at present 140 million tons.
The Coal Board is not asking for 200 million tons or 250 million tons. It is


asking for the present figure of 140 million tons to be left. The industry, in view of what I have said, will be able in 1980, given the opportunity, and if we do not keep knocking it and destroying confidence in it, to get 430 million tons of coal; what is more, with reduced manpower, some 70,000 employees in the industry are over the age of 55. We must give confidence to the industry and to our youngsters to take up mining as a career. It would be a good job if we could do that—we need the coal, which has to be paid for and worked for—but we cannot do that without youngsters coming in in such numbers that they replace the older people leaving the industry.
Of the 330 million of coal equivalent, nuclear and hydro-electric power accounts for 12 million and the Coal Board says that will increase to 40 million; North Sea Gas is 24 million of coal equivalent, which will increase to 70 million; and North Sea Oil, which is nonexistent at the moment, is estimated by 1982 to be worth 80 million tons of coal equivalent. Imported oil, which now accounts for 47 per cent. of the total requirements, will fall from 154 million to 100 million which will mean we shall be dependent on Middle East oil to the tune of 23 per cent. only, which will be half the present liability rate.
In arriving at an energy policy we must take notice of those who know most about it. The 1967 White Paper, although an admirable White Paper, has failed dismally. A lot of its predictions and targets are wrong. If we can arrive at a proper fuel policy and restructure the coal industry on a proper footing then there is a future for it and a future for mining for many years.
I want to make a pedestrian point about fair rents. An hon. Member from the Government side of the House referred to the fact that rebates would be paid. I have never known anyone try to brainwash this country more than the Government about rebates and fair rents. If a tenant is paying £2 a week in rent which is increased to a fair rent of £4 a week, even with a £1 rebate he will still be paying £1 a week more. It will be no comfort to him to tell him he will be getting a rebate. That is a load of nonsense.
We must try to educate our people against being told that everyone will get a rebate and everyone will be better off and there will be a surplus at the end of the road, 50 per cent. of which will go to the Government and 50 per cent. to the local council. There is not a mathematician in the House who can make an equation of that kind balance. We never should have been discussing this matter tonight. The £100 million is in the Supplementary Estimate simply because the Government caused it to be there.

8.54 p.m.

Mr. Harry Ewing: I have few if any miners in my constituency, and therefore I do not speak with the authority of those who represent mining constituencies. I represent a constituency in which is centred the heart of the oil industry in Scotland, if not in this country. I am interested in the future fuel policy, and on behalf of my constituents I want to ensure that oil plays its full part in any policy which may be decided by the Government. I cannot avoid the feeling that after the debate the miners will heave a sigh of relief and express the hope that at long last Parliament and the Government will be taken off the backs of the coal industry and the miners. In recent months the miners have been through a very traumatic experience, and it does no one any good to allow the situation to exist and to cause debates to take place where hon. Members, particularly from the Government side, are allowed to draw out their old prejudices against the mining industry.
I listened with interest to the two main points that seem to have emerged so far. One was the economic theory that if workers will accept only the level of wages that the Government determine is good for their industry they will enjoy a longer life in it, and their future will be more secure. That has not been proved by precedent. My hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) referred to something in which I was involved—the postal strike, last year. In the end we were forced to accept what the Government dictated, yet not long afterwards the Government were talking of sacrificing 25,000 jobs in the industry. Therefore, if workers in any industry, and especially the mining industry, accepted the Government norm—whether it be 8 per cent., 7 per cent. or


20 per cent.—their future in that industry would not necessarily be the more secure.
The second main point was the theory expounded by Conservative Members that what we need is a much slimmer, more efficient and, therefore—they say—better-paid mining industry. I cannot help recalling the theory of the American trade unionist, John L. Lewis, that workers were much better off with a small, well-paid labour force than a poorly-paid labour force. The miners would speak eloquent testimony to the fact that as a result of subscribing to that view over years of successive Governments they have finished up with a small, poorly-paid labour force rather than a small well-paid labour force. Therefore, I am concerned about some of the views expressed by Conservative Members.
The future fuel needs of the country must also be taken into consideration. Our fastest-expanding industry is the energy supply industry. If there is to be a greater need for energy it seems ridiculous to suggest that we should contract part of an industry that supplies it, namely, the coal industry. I wonder, like one of my hon. Friends, how we can reconcile the view that the Government are trying to expand the economy with their talks of contracting the coal industry.
It ill behoves Lord Robens, of all people, to talk about 50,000 miners losing their jobs as a result of the industrial dispute from which the country has recently emerged. He should realise that the only thing that saved him from having to handle such a dispute was not his efficiency or ability but the fact that the rules of the National Union of Mine-workers at that time necessitated a two-thirds majority before strike action could be called. So he has nothing to look back on with credit to himself. It ill behoves him to talk as he did at the end of last week, spreading fear and panic in the mining industry at a time when all concerned with the industry—Government, Opposition, National Coal Board and N.U.M.—should be doing their level best to instill confidence.
I finish on a general theme. Perhaps it will sink home before the Budget is announced. No Government of any political complexion in the industrial his-

tory of this country have ever got away with creating a need for higher wages and then not being prepared to go even half way to meet it. If any Government have created a need for higher wages the present Government have, not only through the Housing Finance Bill but through the 13 per cent. rise in food prices, the withdrawal of school milk, the increased prescription charges—indeed, one could go on all night about the effects of their economic policy on the cost of living. If the present Government or any other Government think that, having created the need for higher wages, they can say to industrial workers—be they miners, postmen, seamen or any others—that they will not go half way to meet the need, they run the risk of the sort of conflict that took place with the miners.
I hope that two things will emerge from this debate. The first is the need for a co-ordinated fuel policy, and within that context I particularly emphasise the need to co-ordinate the developments of North Sea oil supplies. I warn the Government that they are placing the industry in a position in which, through indiscriminate development, benefits will accrue to no one. The Government should be taking a greater interest in the development of North Sea oil, and a greater financial interest, at that.
Secondly, I hope there will emerge a clear understanding by the Government that social justice will not only have to be done but must be seen to be done. No doubt that is an old cliché, but it is worth repeating at this time in our economic history. I hope that the coal industry in particular and the miners in general will now be allowed to settle down on a decent standard of living—which, after all, is what the miners were campaigning for in the recent dispute.

9.3 p.m.

Mr. Bob Brown: I hope that the House will bear with me if the introduction to my remarks tends to have a constituency connotation. There were once seven pits in my constituency. Now we have not one. Nevertheless, many of my constituents are still miners in active work in the pits. Nearly all of them have had the dreadful experience of being made redundant more than once. Many of them have


been shunted from pit to pit, first within my constituency and then, after the closure of the last of its pits—North Wallbottle—to pits in other areas of south-east Northumberland, involving considerable travelling time to work. Then those collieries in their turn closed down, so once again they were shunted from colliery to colliery in south-east Northumberland.
I want to personalise this issue by mentioning an old neighbour of mine. When the High Montague pit in my constituency closed, this old boy was faced with a transfer to Prestwick pit. In his lifetime of work at High Montague, he had been used more or less to stepping out of his backdoor almost directly into the pit cage. This man was of advanced years, probably the late 50's. In the mining industry this is an advanced age. Thousands of miners do not live to draw their retirement pension, and many of those who do do not enjoy it for long.
This man was transferred to Prestwick Colliery which necessitated a two-mile walk to the nearest bus stop, which took him five miles to the nearest point close to the colliery and then he had another two-mile walk. This was after he had spent almost a lifetime living more or less next door to the pit head. He had to walk four miles before and after a shift. Referring to the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Dover (Mr. Peter Rees), I cannot imagine many town clerks choosing to walk four miles before and after a shift.

Mr. Albert Roberts: My hon. Friend should add that that would be at half-past four in the morning.

Mr. Brown: I am grateful. This old boy to whom I am referring had been used to being wakened at perhaps one o'clock in the morning, and he might have had a cup of cocoa or a snack before going into the cage at twenty past one. This man is typical of many of my constituents who have suffered this sort of hardship.
I know that the Government do not relish the defeat of their policies through Wilberforce. Wilberforce need never have happened if we had not had such an obdurate Government, determined to teach a section of the public service workers a lesson. The Government tried

to do it with my union members the year before last when we had the dirty jobs stoppage and last year they managed to do it with the postmen whom they drove back to work. Here 40 per cent. of the miners voted against strike action and the Government thought they saw a soft touch. They did not need to intervene, they thought.
What the Government did not understand—I doubt whether the Prime Minister understands anyone—was the mind of the miner. I should have thought that at least the Under-Secretary, being of Northumberland stock, might have had some idea of what miners are worth. If he did, his voice did not mean anything to his senior colleagues. True, there were 40 per cent. against strike action, but what the Government did not understand was that the 40 per cent. who voted against were as solid as the rest—more so, once the strike began.
The tendency among miners is that once a decision is taken those who are in the minority become keener than the majority to implement that decision. The Government did not expect this, and we had the nonsense of the Coal Board being instructed to withdraw its offer before the strike started. I do not regard Derek Ezra as an evil man, but as a weak tool of the Government.
Since the miners returned to work we have witnessed the savagery of Tory backbenchers. The hon. Member for Torquay (Sir F. Bennett) talked of closing the pits to save the miners from having to do this dangerous, dirty work. He suggested that the Government should rapidly change from producing electricity by coal to producing it by oil, natural gas or nuclear power. Hon. Gentlemen do not realise that the mining areas which are in the greatest jeopardy in Scotland, the North-East and South Wales, are already carrying the greatest share of the misery of unemployment and taking a desperate hammering from the Government's policies. The Supplementary Estimate of £10 million is bitter medicine for hon. Gentlemen opposite. It must be dreadful for them to have to swallow it so soon after the nationalisation of Rolls-Royce and also to have to swallow the £35 million for U.C.S.
My hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) has spoken of the need for a fundamental review of


the future fuel policy. For a long time to come we shall need a fairly large mining industry, and it must be a healthy and contented mining industry. Could not the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries, of which I was a member, have a look at the mining industry? It has been suggested that a Royal Commission should be set up, but the trouble with Royal Commissions is that the report goes on to the Minister's desk, is read and gradually forgotten.
My constituents who are working in the pits want to be able to have confidence in the future. We shall need a strong, healthy mining industry for many years to come. Without it, the expanding economy which we are told is round the corner cannot be sustained. If we want youngsters to come into the mining industry we must give them confidence that they will be able to look forward to a lifetime's work in the industry.
It will be a great tragedy for this nation if we do not evolve a policy in which we can encourage young men to come into the mining industry so that they may be sure in the knowledge that they have before them a lifetime in a healthy industry.

Mr. Albert Roberts: Since we have had so many debates on this point, perhaps I should remind my hon. Friend that there has been talk about a fuel policy for the last 25 years.
We must bear in mind that oil and coal are extractive industries. Since day by day they are diminishing in quantity, we cannot afford to waste them, and therefore we must always see they are used efficiently. We must ensure that we keep a balance in our fuel policy. In the near future it may well be that oil will be extracted from coal quite cheaply, and I would remind my hon. Friend that this may make the product far more competitive than oil which is imported from the Middle East.

Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has great knowledge of the mining industry, for that contribution. Obviously, he can develop his point a little later if he has the opportunity to do so. I conclude by saying that I hope the Minister will resist the blandishments of the wild men behind him for an immediate and sizeable contraction in the coal industry.

9.17 p.m.

Mr. Michael McGuire: The great advantage of this debate is that it enables hon. Members, in a calm and quiet atmosphere, to look at the coal industry rather than to concentrate overmuch on the effects of the national strike. There is no doubt that from time to time the coal industry has been the subject of scrutiny and people have produced various plans to seek to lay down their idea of a fuel policy, though we have not yet seen one actually adopted.
My hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. Albert Roberts) reminded us of the need to conserve something which most modern industrial countries are not merely preserving but are accelerating and developing. They are not leaving the materials in the ground but are using coal to help to expand their industries. Countries which are taking these steps include Russia, the United States and Poland, and certain other countries are creating industries where they have not had them before. They have had the coal, but have not extracted it at anything like a modern industrial rate.
When I was in the industry—and I and many of my hon. Friends around me are fully paid-up members of the union—I well remember the famous Idris Jones fuel policy. This was on the lines of the industry's being told, "There is a target, and the maximum that we expect is round about 253 million tons per year. "I was at that time branch secretary in a pit in which we had been busy for almost two years discussing how we could fit our manpower into the situation in such a way as to produce the expected tonnage. We knew that there would be a few closures, and we knew that other pits would be developed. We also knew that long-life pits were to be built up. We even built new pithead baths to accommodate 2,300 men. However, as things turned out the existing baths were adequate and we did not need the new ones. That was the kind of capital expenditure which went on in all the pits in the country which left the industry with a dead weight. That point was emphasised by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Harper). He is quite right. There is nothing deader than a dead pit. Curiously enough, it is very sad. I do not know why we lament the closure of pits. After all, they are


not very good places in which to work. When the economy is at full stretch we know that men do not dash from Fords and other well-paid jobs to go down the pits.
Often I have polite arguments with doctors, architects and others in well-paid professions. They chide me about industrial wages, and lately they have chided me about miners' wages. My answer to them is a simple one. I do not know of anyone who has specifically set out to train his son to go down a pit and boast about it. That is hard fact. We can expect people to be miners only if we pay them wages which are more than commensurate with what is paid in outside industry. I do not take outside pay as the measuring stick. I think that the Wilberforce Report is right when it says that miners should be paid more than those in outside industry.

Mr. Alexander Wilson: Does my hon. Friend agree that the very essence of the success of the miners' struggle was that it showed that there is no substitute for a good miner? No one else is able to do his work when he is on strike. That is the essence of the Government's failure and the miners' success. The miners have proved that they deserve a real wage for the dangerous and dirty work that they do.

Mr. McGuire: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. I shall come to that point later in my remarks.
I was saying that there is an element of sadness about a pit that has been closed. It may be argued that the sadness arises only because the men who have been put out of work have nothing else useful to do. However, there is something akin to an old warship about a pit that has been closed. Miners take a certain pride in the masculinity of their job. That is essentially true.
We have had plans for an annual output of 250 million or even 300 million tons, which have never been realised. Then we came down to the last plan, which was for about 140 million tons. It was never debated, nor was it accepted, but those of us in the mining group knew that there was a tacitly understood figure which was down to about 80 million tons by 1980. The figure was never mentioned, but we had sufficient knowledge

from our reading to know that that was the ultimate aim.
Instead, there was a great shortage. Manpower fluctuated. When I first went into the pits we had men of 85 working there. Then we stopped them at 70. Then we stopped them at 65—quite rightly, because there was not enough work for those in the industry. We also stopped the influx of untrained men, and said that they could come in only as apprentices. I think that that was wise, too. But then we had a shortage of coal.
The solution is twofold. If we have the right policy, it will be possible to plan the manpower requirements. However, two winters ago, following the trauma that we had about colossal and runaway closures, the then Labour Government took a hand and tried to bring some social responsibility to bear. They said that if the Coal Board would bear a certain proportion of the cost the Exchequer would add so much to it. They tried to phase out pits, paying a subsidy to keep certain pits going for longer than they should have been.
After all that we find that when there was a coal shortage they blamed the miners. The Government said that they were short of coal. We had a programme of closing pits almost willy-nilly, and yet they said that there was not enough coal and they blamed the miners. It was incredible.
We must have a fuel policy, in the national interest. The Minister for Industry was a very effective member of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries. He was a reasonably well-informed critic of the activities of the Coal Board. If we have to wait until we get a proper fuel policy I hope that it will be one which says to the Coal Board: "We, the Government of the day"—the Labour Government did not do it; I am not saying that we were everything perfect and white and that this Government are all black—"say that this is the amount of coal"—given a mild margin—"which we expect you to produce reasonably competitively in the national interest. Given that, we will then slot into position all these other requirements."
With the last fuel policy it was just the opposite. The Government decided what everybody else could produce, and


then said to the Coal Board: "It might be that; it might be something else. We do not know. But do your best."
It reminds me of the story of the old lag in America who was up before the judge. He had obviously committed a lot of crimes. In America they give extravagant sentences. The sentence on that old lag was from 80 to 150 years in the "State Pen", as they used to say in all the best pictures which I watched as a lad. The judge asked the old lag, "Have you anything to say?" The old lag, who was about 75, said: "I have got arthritis, a weak heart, fallen arches. You name it; I have got it. I will never be able to do the sentence, judge." The judge said: "I know, but do the best you can."
That has been the attitude displayed by successive Governments to the National Coal Board. They have tried to show this tremendous sympathy without realising the practicalities of the job.
The key to the problem is a proper fuel policy. Following and concomitant on that will be a highly paid though obviously much slimmer industry.
My hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract reminded us that successive Governments—the Labour Government initially, successive Tory Governments, and the last Labour Government of 1964—have always dangled before the miners the carrot of a much bigger industry if they went for what they considered not to be too big an increase. I am ashamed now, when I look back and realise how modest the claims and increases were. I can recall 7d. a day once being awarded by arbitration. We used to go for modest increases. In other words, we used to ask for 15s. and expect about 7s. 6d. or 10s. Of course, 10s. was quite a reasonable increase. The carrot which was always dangled before the miners' leaders was: "Look, we know you are worth 15s. By jove, you are slipping down the table. However, you are a regional employment force in areas of already high unemployment and you must have some social conscience."
There is no doubt that this message got through to many miners' leaders. I have attended many conferences. Although I have not taken part in the big debate,

I have been present and I have gone back to my branch with the message from conference that uppermost in miners' minds has been that if they took too big a slice of the cake the size of the cake would be diminished the next time, the next time, and the next time.
I can demonstrate that the miners still have a social conscience—and here I pay tribute to the miners represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon). They demonstrated, as no other industry has done, their willingness to hold back when, quite justifiably and legitimately, they could have demanded and succeeded in getting high wages while still producing coal competitively.
The miners have a history of being against district agreements, because such agreements enable one district to be played off against another. Since they became a national union the miners have striven for uniformity. Basically, they have said that a miner in Scotland, in South Wales and in Lancashire, working at the coal face, or whatever job he is doing, should be paid basically the same rate. It has perhaps had some defects on the productivity side but it is, nevertheless, a wise and humane policy.
The miners have always been conscious that if they had too big a slice of the cake on one occasion, on the next occasion there would be less cake—but that was a false argument to use against them. The fact was that because they were receiving low wages they were slipping down the table and, in addition, jobs were racing away from them, with the result that they received no benefit at all.
The modern miners and their leaders take the view that low wages and poor conditions will not maintain their jobs. They sometimes wonder whether they are in any case worth maintaining. We must have a high-wage industry, with an increasing record of productivity, but a prerequisite of that is a proper fuel policy. I hope, therefore, that if the debate serves any purpose it will help to concentrate our minds on the fact that we need a coal industry, and that modern nations are not merely strengthening their coal industries but expanding them. That is the lesson for us, and I hope that the debate tonight will play some part in putting that lesson over to the Government.

9.32 p.m.

Mr. Gwynoro Jones: I agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. McGuire) said about the need for a fuel policy. It is easy for someone to say that he wants a fuel policy. Working it out may prove difficult, but if it had been accepted that the coal industry should be the cornerstone of our fuel policy, it being an indigenous fuel, and we having a fair idea of our reserves of it, we should have had a far better fuel policy than we have today. Instead of starting with coal as the base material for a fuel policy, successive Governments allocated energy requirements to natural gas and other fuels, and then used coal to make up the total requirement.
It is ironic that we should be debating what is termed
Assistance to the Coal Industry
and what, under a further subhead, is referred to as an
Emergency Grant to the National Coal Board.
We all welcome the emergency grant, but I am sure that it is not beyond the wit of the Government to understand that assistance to the coal industry would have been far better deployed had it been provided two or three months ago, and by a vastly different method.
One of my main reasons for taking part in the debate is to make sure that the Government do not try to put it over to the taxpayers of this country that they are having to bear the burden of the strike; that the consumer is having to pay for the strike through increased coal prices. It is our duty to emphasise again where the responsibility lies for the imposition of this £100 million on the taxpayer.
Nobody can deny that there has been a considerable mismanagement of the situation over the last three or four months. It started with a bluffing campaign. It was said that there was not to be any interference by the Government. Then it was said that the board and the unions were holding discussions and it was not the Government's rôle to interfere in such a situation.
The great bogy of wage inflation needs to be examined. If the Minister is going to blame it yet again as the basic cause of redundancy and unemployment at peak levels, perhaps he would consider two

points. The report on Wales by the C.B.I. in March of last year inquired of 190 firms why there was a fall in demand, why they were announcing redundancies and lay-offs and why investment programmes were being abandoned. Of 20 reasons given for such action, investment grants and other things were at the top of the list, while wage inflation, the Government's main argument, was at the bottom. Why are areas of high unemployment also those with low wages?
This emergency grant to the coal industry need not have been paid. Not only did the Government's management damage the economy, the miners and their families and the general public; there is also the loss of equipment and production, and, on top of that, there is the wage bill. If the justice of this claim had been recognised earlier, we would not have lost £10 million or £15 million in production and £4 million or £5 million in equipment. After seven or eight weeks of strikes and many weeks of overtime ban, after the Government's great bluff, they said that the miners were a special case, and the Secretary of State for Employment said that they had maintained this from the beginning.
The Government bear the total responsibility, because of their insensitivity, for having had to bail out this industry. If one Minister had gone to mining areas and discovered the strength of feeling, I am sure that they would not have persisted in this policy. As for the problems after the strike, we have heard of the miners' loyalty and their rôle in the economy. Any hon. Member who was in doubt about that must have found it out over the last two months.
There need no longer be any doubt about the rôle of the coal industry in our economy. It is easy to mention statistics and to say that 70 per cent. of electricity comes from coal-fired stations, but in the last few months we found to our cost the true worth of the industry. The industry is a cornerstone in our economic development and in any assessment or reappraisal of fuel policy.
Perhaps of even more importance, it is a regional industry. The Government have proved so incapable of devising sound regional policies that our suspicions are aroused that the mining industry will suffer even more. In Wales, jobs in prospect are declining; in the last year


20,000 people have been made redundant; unemployment is 70 per cent. up; the number of new factories is half what it was in 1967, 1968 and 1969; only 5,000 new jobs were created last year, as against 20,000 people made redundant.
This is the background against which we are discussing the industry. In Carmarthen 2,000 people have been made redundant in the last year. Compared with the experience of many British towns, that is not a high figure, but Carmarthen is in the main a non-industrial area. It is becoming a fact of life that the coal mining industry, in, for instance, the Gwendraeth Valley, where I come from, is the only staple employment.
We want a categorical assurance from the Minister that there will be an acceptance by the Government of the present size of the industry. Not enough coal is being produced in Britain and we import millions of tons a year. We are not sure whether the world's energy demand will continue at the present rate. I have read somewhere that, if the post-war rate of growth of energy demand in the developed world continues, it is questionable whether the energy supply will be able to meet the demand in the year 2000. The Government should undertake that they will close no more pits.
This is more than just a regional problem. Nobody particularly wants to go down a mine. Although I am the son of a man who has worked in the mines all his life and both my grandfathers worked in the mines, I have been down a mine once, and that was on the occasion of the tragic disaster at Cynheidre a few years ago. We realise that no one is eager to go down a coal mine, but it is a fact of life that for too many people it is the only means of employment.
We must look at it, not purely as a regional problem, but in terms of Britain's whole economic prospects, the total demand for energy, and the contribution that coal can make.
We may have oil and natural gas around our coast, but what are the quantities? It is said that North Sea gas will run out in 20 to 30 years. For imported oil we are at the mercy of various countries. But with coal we know that we have beneath our feet enough to last us 100 to 150 years.
There is more to this whole issue than forecasting how much fuel we have or how long ahead we can look. Bound up with this whole problem is the need for a proper fuel policy. Before coming to this House I worked for the Gas Board in Wales as an assistant economist. I recall that on one occasion we were informed that seven out of ten householders in one newly-built estate had chosen gas for their main supply. This is, therefore, not simply a Government imposed policy but one of personal choice.
We must be assured that there will be a thorough appraisal of fuel policy, with coal established as the central fuel. It must be the cornerstone on which the policy is based. The Minister must also say that, whatever he is told by his supporters behind him, there will be no more pit closures. Some hon. Gentlemen opposite think the miners need a lesson because of the recent strike. That is not the case. Indeed, the experience of the last three months suggests that the Government rather than the miners need a lesson.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite are always telling us how they are the commercial wizards, the managers of the world; that when the going gets tough, just call them in and everything will be put right. If they really want to run the show in a business-like way, they should accept coal as the central fuel for their future energy policy.
I urge the Government to reflect that the recent dispute was the first national strike. The 1920 affair was not a strike but a lock-out. I trust that the Minister will confess that, in addition to the Prime Minister, there were other stubborn Members of the Cabinet and that collectively they mishandled the whole dispute. That followed the miners constantly being told, "If you ask for £1 more, 20,000 miners will be out of work." The Government stand condemned for their actions.
We need to examine the contribution that the Government can make towards restructuring the industry's finances. The Coal Board certainly needs assistance, but it did not require this form of assistance. Ultimately, this is not assistance but an admission of a major miscalculation which damaged the industry and our economy. The Government stand condemned on that basis.

9.50 p.m.

Mr. Alexander Wilson: My intervention in the debate will not be a very long one. Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Gwynoro Jones), I have been down a mine more than once. I have been down mines since I was 14, and until I came to the House. For that reason alone I am proud of the miners' struggle. I am even more proud that they have won their struggle against the most reactionary Tory Government that the House has ever seen.
In the Supplementary Estimate the sum of £100 million is mentioned. Had the Government shown a modicum of common sense when the miners first submitted their claim in the latter part of last year the misery and hardship bestowed on the miners and their families, and flung on to the British people, could have been avoided. The blame surely lies at the heart of the present Administration. The Government must recognise that all their pie-in-the-sky promises of the last 18 months about the expansion of the economy can be of no avail unless they recognise that the fuel and energy requirements of our economy depend to the extent of 70 per cent. on our coal industry.
One point that has not been mentioned in the debate so far is that there have been deliberate attempts by the Government to import coal, particularly coking coal, at a far higher price than that for which it could be obtained in Britain. That was done during October, November and December last year, with no other intention than to circumvent the claims of our miners. When we consider the importance of our only indigenous fuel and the fact that it supplies 70 per cent. of our energy requirements, we wonder where the true patriotism lies—and whether it is on the Government side or on this side.
Over the years, the miners did not struggle through, because of their patriotism, under a Tory Government or a Labour Government. The miners have been very lenient in their claims over the years, but they had reached breaking point when they decided that a reasonable standard of living must be given to them because of the dangerous nature of their occupation and the value of that occupation to the British economy.
The confrontation came but the Government did not see the light. They did not foresee the possibility of the complete solidarity exhibited by the miners and their families and they did not foresee the unity of the other trade unionists who were determined that the miners were entitled to a standard of living which rewarded them for their dangerous work.
One aspect of the debate has not been sufficiently highlighted. It is evident from questions to the Minister that the import of coal was increased from the moment the miners first lodged their pay claim and I believe that the Government intend that imports should be further increased. I hope they do not plan a conversion of coal-fired power stations to another fuel. I will give them a warning, as a miners' representative. I have the vested interest of 300,000 miners and their families, and so the warning is serious: what the miners did once they can do again when their livelihood is threatened and when their standard of living is at risk. Let the Government show where their patriotism lies by declaring that the only true indigenous fuel in this country will have its proper place in an integrated fuel policy which will help to expand the economy in the way the Government have promised for the last 18 months.
I hope that the Government will not too often tell the story about expanding the economy to the hundreds of thousands of unemployed. They do not believe that there will be an expansion of the economy. I doubt very much whether they will view the Budget tomorrow with other than scepticism, whatever it may bring, because not a single promise contained in the Conservative manifesto has come true.
The price of imported coke and coal cost the nation £7 to £8 a ton more than home-produced coal. Are the Government prepared to saddle industry with that extra cost, to the detriment of the coal industry in Britain? Are they prepared to see collieries like Cardowan and Bedlay in Lanarkshire shut? Are they prepared to see Lanarkshire turned into an industrial desert for their own purposes, or are they prepared to say now that they will give coal its true place in the expansion of the economy that the Cabinet says will come. Why close down collieries? Why attempt to convert power stations? Heavy unemployment would


result from closures of concerns like U.C.S. and Rolls-Royce. But the figure would be far greater in the mining industry if there were further pit closures. Do the Tories say that everything must be measured in monetary terms, or will they consider the social consequences of pit closures?
Let them consider my own constituency, where 600 to 700 men and women were put on the scrap heap as a result of the research and development unit of Rolls-Royce being closed in March, 1971. Are they prepared to see the escalation of unemployment not just in Lanarkshire but all over the country? The job loss will be counted in thousands, in addition to the 1½ million now unemployed. I do not expect a Tory Government to measure the consequences in human terms. I doubt their ability to judge the human effect—the human consequences to men and women thrown on the scrap heap, particularly those over 50.
I hops that the Minister will acknowledge the needs and aspirations of the men and women in the coal industry who helped build up the economy to its present extent. It was they who built up the balance of trade surplus, not the Tory Party. They were the people who put the "Great" into Great Britain over the centuries—the ordinary working people, the miners, steelworkers, and so on. I worked in a pit, and two months before the General Election I took part in three pit closures.
Do not the Government realise that the miners are sick and tired of being shuffled about from pit to pit—[Interruption.]. The Minister may laugh, but he had better realise that the miners will no longer be pushed about by a Tory Government, or any Government; that they will not accept pit closures on the basis of economy, but will accept from the industry only closures based on the exhaustion of seams. They will not accept any more direction of labour as a result of Tory Government whims. What we demand when hundreds and thousands of men and women are placed on the scrap heap is direction of industry to the areas concerned—the North-East, Wales, Scotland, and so on.
Will not the Government accept the lesson taught them by the determination

of our workers not so many weeks ago, to see that the great coal industry found its proper place in the economy? Instead of giving concessions on oil to private industrialists, instead of bowing their knee to foreign oil barons, will not the Government agree that their own people who built up the coal industry are entitled to a fair share of the economy? Will not they accept the need for emergency action in connection with the industry?
We believe this to be the most reactionary Tory Government in our history, but I make one last appeal to them. In Lanarkshire there are over 13,000 unemployed and fewer than 300 vacancies available for them. If another pit is closed in Lanarkshire for reasons other than that of exhaustion, the results will be on the Government's own head. Within the next 12 months—I give them no more than that—they had better, through one measure or another, alleviate the unemployment situation in the first place and, secondly, leave the coal industry alone, apart from giving it help to sustain itself and to build itself up as a modern industry within an expanding economy. If the Government do that, even I will be prepared to admit that that is at least one promise they are prepared to keep. I hope that they will sincerely consider the problem and do just that.

10.6 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): We have had a good and long debate, but I was a little surprised when the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) selected this subject for debate. We had a long debate on coal and fuel policy on 10th March; we had many debates during the miners' strike; we have another debate tomorrow night on two orders to change the deficit and borrowing powers limits of the National Coal Board.
It seems that there is some apprehension in the minds of hon. Members opposite. We have had debate after debate in order, as it were, to ascertain from the Government whether in some way the events of the last few months have gravely altered the position and whether some threat has been caused—whether, indeed, the strike went too far.
Me thinks they do protest too much! I really would ask them to be a little more patient. I have said over and over again, as has my right hon. Friend, that these matters are being reviewed. The points which have been made are perfectly well understood. They have been taken on board long before tonight. There have of course been the usual careful studies in order to make sure that the right answers are arrived at. I am sorry, but I must tell hon. Members that I can give no assurances tonight about the future. This is no time to give them. Indeed, it is always dangerous to give assurances about the future at any stage.
It was clear that hon. Members, in the most eloquent and persistent terms, were arguing the case of the share of the coal industry in future fuel policy. I was surprised to hear not one word in defence of the small, privately-owned mines, which employ 2,000 people, nearly all in development areas, with their problems arising from the events of the last few months. Their problems are being looked at by my right hon. Friend sympathetically, just as he is looking sympathetically at the National Coal Board and its finances. But it did surprise me that, in all this talk about the coal industry and employment in the regions, not one mention was made of these privately-owned mines.

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that a week last Friday there was a Motion on the Order Paper, tabled by some of his hon. Friends, which sought to teach the miners a lesson? Today there have been two Questions on the Order Paper talking about accelerating pit closures, yet neither mentioned anything about jobs for miners once the pits were closed. Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that in almost all mining areas there is a high unemployment rate and before anyone talks about putting pressure on the Government to close mines there must be pressure on them to bring in new jobs to the areas?

Mr. Ridley: I did not notice that the terms of the Motion on Friday week inhibited the hon. Gentleman from making his usual forceful contribution, and I am delighted that he did. I am not complaining about the opportunity being taken to discuss the coal industry, I am

just surprised that it seems to be so much in the minds of hon. Gentlemen opposite that they ought to make sure that the Government are not in some way trying to take it out of the miners, as the phrase goes.
Nothing that the Government have said should give the Opposition this impression, and they need not have this earnest desire to settle the fuel policy before basic studies have been completed to get the Government to commit themselves to a particular target for coal before we have had a chance to examine this question. Surely the time for this is when the Government can come to the House with some conclusions.

Mr. Eadie: The hon. Gentleman is being less than fair. I made the point that there was a Cabinet leak reported in the Daily Express during the miners' strike. The hon. Gentleman should tell us about this now that the strike is over.

Mr. Ridley: I will come to that point. I do not want to talk about the strike or the handling of it, but I do want to say something in all sincerity to hon. Gentlemen. They talk about victory as if there was no area of doubt but that to force the biggest pay increase possible is the right thing to do. I have listened intently to them and I want them to ponder upon whether, if every industry and every group of workers could prevail upon the Government to yield wage increases in excess of the national increase in productivity, it would serve any interest. The person who has been beaten is the ordinary citizen, not the Government. The ordinary citizen has made it clear that his or her main worry is rising prices. This is the effect of such pressures and such a settlement. It is bound to put up prices.
There was no singling out of the miners, to quote the hon. Member for Fife, West. There was no hymn of hate, as the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) alleged. There is no particular feeling about any one trade, profession or industry. There is a policy which has been trying to bring about a moderation in the inflationary growth of incomes and a moderation in the rise in prices. This is being applied as far as the Government are able to do so fairly and squarely across the board.

Mr. James Dempsey: The hon. Gentleman implied that it was the miners who forced a wage increase in excess of the national productivity increase. Is it not the case that it was the Wilberforce Inquiry that compelled the Government to meet the increase, not the miners?

Mr. Ridley: I do not quarrel with the hon. Gentleman except to say that the Government accepted the Wilberforce increase, which they might well not have done.
I remind the House of the advantages which the coal industry has. The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Alexander Wilson) and others who pleaded for special help for this indigenous fuel must not ignore the position of the industry. Until the year before last coal imports were forbidden except in special cirmumstances. It was the shortage in the1971 winter which justified imports. The amount of coal which came into the country was very small, and much of it was coal which was not available in this country and was specially required for various metallurgical and chemical processes. The C.E.G.B. imported a considerable bulk of ordinary steam coal so as to secure its supplies when it was thought that coal would be in short supply.
The effect of this was wholly beneficial to the coal industry. The price of imported coal for ordinary steam-raising purposes tends to be higher than the price of domestic coal. The coal industry, therefore, has protection in the form of its own keen price. When one adds the cost of transport, distribution and handling to the price of foreign coal there can be no doubt that it is to the advantage of all consumers in this country to purchase home-produced coal rather than imported coal so long as the supply is available. Twice in the last 18 months that supply has not been available, and that is why consumers should have freedom to import.

Mr. Alexander Wilson: Does the Minister agree that pits have been closed far too readily under both Administrations? All I am asking is that the Tory Government should slow down the rate of closures so that pits are closed only because of seam exhaustion. It is folly for the Government to import coal which

costs between £7 and £8 per ton more than it costs to produce in this country when they can keep open pits, particularly for coking coal on which the steel industry depends.

Mr. Ridley: I heard those remarks from the hon. Gentleman when he was sitting elsewhere. It is like stereophonic sound, coming from both corners of the room at once.
The Supplementary Estimate gives £100 million to the Coal Board as a grant for one reason only. This is that without it the Coal Board would be illegal in that it would have exceeded its statutory deficit limit at the end of March when its financial year runs out. Taken with the two orders which I shall move tomorrow, it ensures that the Coal Board will not exceed its statutory limits. This is the immediate action which had to be taken to prevent the Coal Board becoming illegal in terms of its power to run up deficits and to borrow. It has no significance other than the immediate short-term one of bringing the Coal Board financially into the clear. It is not, as my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) alleged, to finance the losses which will arise from the settlement of the pay dispute. It will probably be inadequate to meet short-term losses caused by the strike.
We have announced that the Coal Board will be increasing the price of coal by an average of 7½ per cent. which will bring in £60 million. That will still mean £30 million per annum of continuing deficit which will have to be met in the same way as I am at present specifying. But it must also be remembered that even the 7½ per cent. price rise will make coal less competitive. My hon. Friend's suggestion that the full cost of the settlement should be put on the price of coal would have drastically reduced the consumption of coal in a very sudden way.
Let us look at the other advantages of the coal industry. Over the last six years the contribution to its social costs which the Government or taxpayer have made amounts to £43 million. The Government's contribution to the redundant mineworkers' pension scheme amounts to £31 million; the Government's contribution to early pensions amounts to £7½ million. The Labour Government wrote off £415 million of capital, leaving it with


a very low capital reserve of £675 million, and with an interest charge of only £36 million per annum. In addition, there is a fuel oil tax which provide? a protection in terms of its competitiveness of something in the region of a half new penny per therm, which gives it a considerable advantage in bidding for markets. It has no financial target at present, but its last target was to break even.
When the hon. Member for Fife, West suggests that its financial obligation should be greatly eased, I am not sure how one can ease an obligation to break even. Even if its entire capital were written off—which is not what I am suggesting will happen—the reduction of only £36 million per annum in interest charges would not do more than meet the cost of the unmet part of the Wilberforce settlement.
Despite these enormous advantages, more must be done. My right hon. Friend has made it clear that there will have to be a capital reconstruction of some sort and is examining ways of meeting the problems I have mentioned. For the hon. Member for Fife, West, to suggest that we should go on saddling the Coal Board with paying £10,000 to each miner who becomes redundant would be compounding these financial problems as well as setting up difficult comparisons with other industries.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Adam Butler) was right to say that this settlement has placed extremely difficult problems in the way of the coal industry. Its competitive position is considerably impaired as a result of what has happened. Whatever the Government do—and the Government are examining these problems sympathetically—it cannot be assumed that the result will be that everything will go on exactly as before and that by a few debates in this House all can be put right.
I should like to say a word about redundancy, before coming to the question of fuel policy. The redundant miner gets his redundancy pay in the same way as does everybody else. He also qualifies for the pension scheme and he qualifies for the redundant miner workers' payment scheme as well. [An Hon. Member: "What pension scheme?"] The pension he gets if he is of pension able age. As I was saying, he also qualifies

for the redundant miner workers' payment scheme which was approved by the House a few weeks ago and which gives him £3 which is based on an average of past earnings. This is the only industry that gets such a payment. That scheme was genuinely welcomed when it was introduced in the House not so very long ago. When I heard the hon. Member for Fife, West say that a miner who had been 40 years in a pit could end up with only thirty bob a week, I could not believe it. He would not have been able to get the redundant mineworker's pension unless he had started at the age of 14, in which case he would get it next year. The hon. Gentleman should take into account this generous scheme, which is far more generous than the E.E.C. scheme designed for similar purposes—[Interruption.] When hon. Members complain that the coal industry is not being well treated, they have only to compare it with the way in which other coal industries are treated.
I want finally to say a word about fuel policy implications. The hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) referred to the Chapman Pincher Report which I and my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry said that we had not seen until we had read about it in the papers. We still have not seen it, and I do not know of any of my right hon. and hon. Friends who have. I must dismiss it as one of those kites which occasionally fly over Whitehall.

Mr. Ewing: If the hon. Gentleman looks in the same place as the recommendations for the U.C.S. were placed, he may find it there.

Mr. Ridley: I come, then, to the question of energy policy. There are a lot of new and difficult factors, as I said on 10th March, There is the problem of the security of North Sea oil and gas to which the hon. Member for Midlothian referred. However, I think that they are much more secure fuels than many others. Certainly Middle East oil lacks credibility in terms of price and security, but so does home-produced coal, after the events of the past few months. It must be regarded in the minds of customers as a much less secure fuel than it was. We already have some evidence of a desire to switch by customers of the coal industry as a result of what has happened.
The most dominant feature in the minds of customers is probably the price. Convenience is one. Security of supply is another. But price is certainly one. What is imponderable is what will the price of Middle East as well as home-produced oil and of nuclear power be, and what will be the price of coal, because coal has taken a large increase in price already. The prospects for each of these fuels has never been more difficult to assess. I remind hon. Members that we shall have to live with the decisions taken now perhaps for 30 years. Power stations which are commissioned five or six years ahead based on today's decisions will be in existence for another 25 years after that time. It is of paramount importance to give the Government time to make use of all these inputs so that they get the right answers when finally they make up their minds.
We take account of regional policy and regional unemployment even in calculations of this sort. There are about 115,000 of the Coal Board's employees situated in development areas—and I am talking not of intermediate areas but of development areas. That is obviously a major factor which must be taken into account in any review of these matters. What we shall not be able to do is to say, as the hon. Member for Ince (Mr.

McGuire) requested, "This is the amount of coal that we want produced." The hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Gwynoro Jones) gave the hon. Gentleman his answer when he did his survey of the new houses in the Wales Gas Board area, where he found that seven out of 10 consumers wanted gas and not coal. The hon. Member for Ince must tell his hon. Friend how to change this and persuade those who want gas that they should have coal. This remains a country where the consumer can choose the fuel which he wants to buy. If the Government, through their policy of controlling the fuelling of power stations, give an added advantage to coal, as they have in the past, that is only half the market. The other half of the coal market will depend upon its price, security of supply and the general convenience which its users find for it.

Mr. Gwynoro Jones: Mr. Gwynoro Jones rose—

Mr. Ridley: No, I will not give way. I have just about finished.
At the end of the day we must all remember that it is the consumer whom we are trying to serve with our fuel policy. Whether it is oil, gas, nuclear or coal, it is not in itself an end. The end is to give the consumer the cheapest and most convenient fuel at the time, place and security of supply that he wishes.

DISABLED PERSONS (ATTENDANCE ALLOWANCE)

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Greville Janner: I am grateful to have the opportunity to raise the question of the pathetically inadequate Supplementary Estimate for attendance allowances. This problem potentially affects probably hundreds of thousands of people in this country.
The problem was brought most vividly to my attention a few months ago by the parents of an eight-year-old boy called Jimmy Martin, who was born with no legs and only one arm. His parents came to see me. They told me that they had been refused an attendance allowance. I found that quite unbelievable, and advised them to appeal. They appealed, and the appeal failed. Why?
The reason, to some extent, is the greatest tribute that could ever be paid to the parents and the school. This little boy, with three false limbs, goes to the local Woodstock Primary School, and is treated just like other children. He manages in school along with the rest of the children. He is a determined, courageous little man.
His parents bring him up with such affection and normality that they have fooled even the doctors who examined him in connection with the allowance. The doctor who examined Jimmy on behalf of the Attendance Allowance Board found that he sleeps at night. Apparently that is taken as preventing the parents from obtaining an attendance allowance. My question is: when are we going to spare a little more money so that we no longer have to say that a child with three limbs missing is not sufficiently disabled for an allowance to be paid?
I have here a statement signed by a doctor—whose signature, happily, is in decipherable—giving the reasons why Jimmy's application was turned down:
I accept that James will require during the day attention and supervision substantially in excess of that normally required by a boy aged eight. With regard to the night I accept that he sometimes requires attention".
He has one limb on at night; the others come off. If he can get out of bed, he

cannot get back. He cannot attend the toilet on his own; he cannot get on or off. He has to have people with him at every minute, day and night. Since the moment of his birth this little child has not been left alone.
The doctor continues
On this issue, however, I am not satisfied that he normally requires prolonged or repeated attention in connection with his bodily functions during the night. I accept that he is not left alone in case he should come to harm"—
that is the point—
and that there is a propensity to falls during the day".
I am told that he sometimes falls half a dozen times during the day and on many occasions he rips his trousers. He also has an artificial arm which wears through the elbow of his jacket. He manages magnificently, but he is seriously disabled.
… I find no propensity to substantial danger during the night"—
that is when he has three limbs off—
and I am not satisfied that he requires continual supervision from another person in order to avoid substantial danger to himself or others substantially in excess of that normally required by a boy aged eight.
I disagree with the doctor, who continues with a phrase which upsets many people, including myself:
I express my sympathy for this severely disabled boy"—
this is a question not of sympathy but of justice and humanity to the child and his parents—
but the matter to be determined by me is whether James satisfies one or other of the requirements specified in
the appropriate Act and Regulations.
I am not satisfied that he is so severely disabled physically or mentally that he requires from another person, in connection with his bodily functions, frequent attention throughout the day and prolonged or repeated attention during the night, and requires attention and supervision substantially in excess of that normally required by a child of the same age and sex, or that he is so severely disabled physically or mentally that he requires continual supervision from another person in order to avoid substantial danger to himself or others and requires attention and supervision substantially in excess of that normally required by a child of the same age and sex.
This is for a child who has not been left alone for a moment since his birth, and who has only one limb out of four.


To suggest that this brave young boy does not require constant supervision in the ordinary sense of the word is, to my mind, a travesty of the English language. It may be that he does not need to have somebody by his bedside all night, but that is not the criterion upon which the attendance allowance is, or should be granted. Somebody has to be in attendance so that if he needs anything it can be got for him. A child of that sort cannot be left alone at any time.
I soon discovered that this child's case is far from unique. The number of cases that have, unfortunately, come forward as a result of the story of Jimmy Martin becoming known is large, indeed, and the range is tremendous. Many of them are extremely sad cases. My experience is that they have come through to almost every hon. Member, on both sides of the House. In this case I do not feel that we on this side of the House have anything to be particularly permanently proud of, except that the Act that was brought in was brought in by the previous Government, but none too soon. I do not feel that this is a matter upon which we can have complete self-satisfaction. I believe that this is a matter that ought to be reconsidered at once.
The range of illness covered is extraordinary. There are many mentally handicapped people who are much worse than Jimmy Martin, and whose parents cannot bring their cases before the public. The worst of these is a child who is a spastic, quadruplegic, doubly incontinent, unable to walk without support, epileptic, who can never be left alone unless strapped into a chair, and an I.Q. so low that it is untestable. Yet his parents have been refused a constant attendance allowance.
Floods of letters have come to me and to the Martins during the last few weeks, and they are very sad indeed. Why should the law be interpreted in this way? Is it just a question of cost? Apparently about 38,000 people have been turned down. If that is a cost of £5 a week in round figures—£4·80 tax-free—it means about £10 million a year. Are we so poor that we cannot afford that for the worst off of our people? Surely it is a disgrace to our country that we are prepared to quibble over the wording of regulations or an Act of Parliament so

as to shut out of our mercy those who most need it?
A letter in today's Evening Newssays that it would cost about ½p per person per year to see that these people get help. Even if the Minister is right in thinking that 400,000 people may be involved, that is not a matter upon which we should be mean or stingy. It is a question of common justice. These cases are dealt with in Holland and Germany in a proper manner. We should not be left behind.
I received a letter today from a doctor who spoke about a person who has to remain in hospital, unhappy, and costing the country at least ten times the amount of the allowance, because his wife was refused constant attendance allowance which would have enabled her to have her husband at home. This question is not confined to children. It concerns very old and dying people, who would be infinitely better off in their own homes if only some small support could be given to the families whose job and wish it is to look after them but who cannot afford to do so.
The amount of £4·80 is not large to many people, but to those who are living on the verge of poverty and to old-age pensioners it is a fortune—enough to enable them to care for those who could live at home. It costs £20 a week to keep a person in the average hospital. A sum of £4·80 is one-quarter of that. On my reckoning, if about 12,500 people now in hospitals could be enabled to live at home as a result of a wider and more humane interpretation of the regulations there would even be a profit, if one looked at it from the point of view of cost, which repeat I do not. What is being asked for is a very small increase—£270.000—compared to a vast and intolerable problem. Many people in this country, of all political beliefs, feel that the situation must be changed at once.
I wish to pay tribute to the many people who have written about this, and to those who have written to the Martins. I have here a pile of the kindest and most wonderful letters that I have ever read—some from people who have sent little gifts not only to Jimmy but to Wendy, his normal, 11-year-old sister, so that she will not feel out of it. I pay tribute to Douglas Bader, a very great man, who


kindly lent his support to this campaign. I pay tribute to those who have organised or agreed to be patrons of a petition in Leicester, to be presented to this House in due course, including the Lord Mayor and Mayoress, leaders of all faiths, headmasters of local schools, the President of the Beaumont Working Men's Club and the Editor of the Leicester Mercury.
I also pay tribute to the people who had wished to finance this campaign. I hope that that will not be necessary, because if the campaign has to go forward the Leicester Corporation has offered the use of an empty shop and the Leicester Mercury has agreed, at no charge, to print 10,000 petition forms. The petition will be distributed by schools, churches, working men's clubs and licensed victuallers. This is a show of unanimity in the face of intolerable injustice. I hope that it is welcome to both sides of the House.

Mr. Tom Boardman: I pay tribute to the hon. and learned Member for the publicity which he has achieved in the case of Jimmy Martin. I agree that too often those who have the care and love do not get the cash. But would not the hon. Gentleman also pay tribute to the Government who brought in this grant, which extends to 75,000 people who are even more severely handicapped—a grant which his party when in office did not give?

Mr. Janner: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has seen fit to look at the matter in that way. I shall be pleased to pay tribute to the Government if the uncoroborated rumour that I hear is true—that this regulation is to be interpreted so as to help those who are excluded at the moment. We should not forget the Act brought in by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris). But this Government brought in welcome regulations, and I look forward to welcoming an extension of those regulations, if that is forthcoming.
In a letter, the Secretary of State, to whom I pay tribute as being a kindly man, has said that in due course the Government intend to extend the present arrangements. But, unfortunately, he declined—this letter was written on 7th

March—even to see the Martins and their children, because, he said:
This really would be to raise false hopes of an immediate award of an allowance, and I do not think it would be right for me to do that.
I am happy to pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman for changing his mind; changing one's mind is a sign of strength. When he heard that the Martins were coming to the House he kindly agreed to see them and to refer the matter again to the Attendance Board, but he emphasised again that this was not to offer hope of any immediate change.
I hope that the Minister will tell us whether reports of a change are true. The petition in the City of Leicester is at present being held up until next Monday, in the hope that the statement which has appeared in the Press is true.
I hope that the Minister will tell us what the Government are to do, in the name of humanity, honour and justice, not only for Jimmy Martin but also for the thousands of handicapped people and their families for whom, in the past few weeks, the name of little Jimmy Martin has become a symbol of hope.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Jack Ashley: The House owes a debt of gratitude to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Greville Janner) for raising the question of the attendance allowance and for dramatising, by means of the very sad case of Jimmy Martin, the problems arising in connection with the attendance allowance.
I want to sound a word of warning to the House. I know that my hon. and learned Friend will not misconstrue what I have to say. The genuinely sad case of this young boy has vitally highlighted some of the problems of the attendance allowance, but the House should not overlook the many other cases, which are not attractive like a young boy who is, in a sense, a hero and who has been photographed with another hero—a very moving spectacle: I commend the courage of both of them.
The House must not forget the many unglamorous people who require the attendance allowance. Some of those who need the allowance are very old; some are very sick; some are very


crippled; some are very gloomy; some, indeed, are unpleasant; many of them are miserable. These are the cases that many hon. Members on both sides have been concerned with for a number of years. My hon. and learned Friend has done a great service by highlighting the general problem with the one case. It would be a terrible mistake if we were to overlook the wider concept and the more general problem of these people.
The question has been raised of who should take credit for the attendance allowance. I believe that that is a sterile argument. It is not a question whether the Labour Government proposed it and this Government disposed it. People on both sides of the House have habitually worked for the disabled in all kinds of ways, in all kinds of weathers, and at all times. If there is to be any credit—although one does not want to select any body of people—it belongs to the Disablement Income Group, which conceived the idea of the attendance allowance and persuaded the Labour Government to accept it. It was accepted by the Labour Government in principle. People like Miss Mary Greaves and Mr. Duncan Guthrie who were behind it. That led to its acceptance by the Labour Government and its ultimate operation by this Government.
My fear is that the examples that all hon. Members could quote will be overlooked. I will quote three examples, quite apart from the many in my constituency with which I have been personally involved and about which I have made representations. These three examples are as striking as any I have ever heard, yet they are of an entirely different type from the one rightly raised by my hon. and learned Friend. One of them is that of a 22-year-old incontinent girl, weighing 16 stones, who has screeching fits and who lives at home. A girl of that kind, screeching like mad and having fits, surely deserves the attendance allowance. She does not get it.
Then there is the case of a totally blind man whose wife gave up her job to stay at home to look after him. He has not been given the constant attendance allowance. Likewise, there is the case of a 35-year-old woman who is a paraplegic, suffering from deafness, with

bladder trouble. She cannot walk, go upstairs, or use the bath. Surely she deserves the allowance. Incidentally she has been deserted by her husband.
Why is the allowance refused in these cases? If people are sedated at night they are not regarded as being in need of attention. If people have a mechanical bed, that very fact is held to be a reason for not giving them the allowance. If people are incontinent for one or two nights, rather than every night, they do not qualify.
But the main reason is the application form which the Government have designed. Its terms are too black and white, in that everything depends far too much on the interpretation of the doctors. Some doctors do not visit patients before making their assessments. The Government may decided to make such visits mandatory, in which case they might consider paying doctors a fee for this work, in view of the extra responsibility—but that is a subject on which I cannot expand in this debate.
The rejection form tells people that there is no appeal against rejection, yet many reviews have been granted, and the terminology of an "appeal" as distinct from a "review" is confusing, especially to sick people. I hope that the Minister will rephrase the wording and make it clear that if an application is refused a right of appeal may be exercised.
It would be helpful if the Minister would recommend that the social services officer of the local authority should visit every person who applies for the constant attendance allowance. That would help to ensure that such people are made aware of all the services provided by the authority.
I pay tribute to my hon. and learned Friend for highlighting the fundamental problem of the attendance allowance. The new provision is a step forward, although it is not as major a change as the Act pioneered by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris). It represents a promising beginning. I would be out of order in asking for the scheme to be extended, but I assure the Minister that the whole House would be warmly appreciative if he would take account of the representations that have been made in this debate.

10.54 p.m.

Mr. Tom King: I apologise to the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Greville Janner) because I was absent at the beginning of the debate and because I may have to leave a little early. I am myself somewhat disabled, having left hospital at mid-day today. I hope that I shall be able to remain on my feet long enough to make two brief points.
What was said by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) was absolutely right. That this is a promising beginning should be the underlying message of the debate. That is what hon. Members on both sides of the House recognise about the constant attendance allowance.
If there were anything that other hon. Members and I could do for Jimmy Marlin that would help him and improve his health we would want to do it, but we are facing the problem of introducing gradually, progressively and, I hope, continually an improving form of help in this tragic matter. I doubt whether there is any hon. Member who has not had tragic instances brought to his attention, now that the rules have been drawn, of those simply appalling cases that fall just outside the present regulations. That is why I welcome my right hon. Friend's assurance that attention will be given to this matter and that as soon as possible we shall look for some widening of the criteria. But let us not forget that when those criteria are widened, yet again we shall find many tragic cases that will still sadly fall outside the provisions of the regulations and whatever lines we, in our wisdom, as a Parliament, draw.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is considering a case that I have referred to him. So often these cases and the appeals fall over the problem of "night" and that it cannot always be claimed that regular night attendance is required. But all hon. Members must know of many cases where the degree of attendance and the degree of appalling concern by day is such that the question of attendance by night hardly seems relevant. Many people are appallingly physically handicapped but are mentally perfectly sound and are a pleasure to live with, being courageous, bright and intel-

ligent, but they require constant physical attendance, by day and by night.
There is an enormously strong case for saying that the other sad category of people whose condition is such that to live with them is a tragedy every minute of the waking day but who, by treatment, mainly by sedation, require no treatment by night and are therefore rendered ineligible for the allowance are, in certain cases more entitled to some assistance. It is in no sense of criticism that I say to the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-West that in spite of the welcome that has been given, I have some doubt whether this is the right forum for discussing this matter. Whatever the hon. and learned Member may say, hopes have been raised and many people will be seeing the anomalies For every Jimmy Martin, and the tragedy that Jimmy Martinis, there are many thousands more. Few would conceive that there are 78,000 cases worse than Jimmy Martin. The case from my constituency that my hon. Friend the Undersecretary is considering is more deserving than Jimmy Martin, with great respect for the concern of the hon. Member for his constituent. As the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South very wisely said, my case is much less attractive in some way; it concerns a rather elderly gentleman. The problems that he raises for his family are serious.
Against the background of the many serious problems that the Measure inevitably raises, our approach must be most prudent and conscious of the interests not so much of those who fall within the criteria that we establish as those who fall just outside and who are to be so disappointed.
Speaking as a lame duck myself—I hesitated to use the words—I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will appreciate the strength of the beginning that my hon. Friends have made. This is a measure that we all welcome, and we must all think most wisely about its further expansion.

11.1 p.m.

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: We were all sorry to hear that the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Tom King) has been in hospital, but we are all glad to see him here this evening speaking on behalf of the people mentioned by my hon. and learned Friend


the Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Greville Janner). This is a question on which we should not be thinking in party terms. The Measure could have been brought in years ago. The Labour Government were responsible, through my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris) for introducing it. It was brought in by one Government and implemented by another, and one side cannot seek to claim party advantage for it.
There are many cases throughout the country that one could argue to the Minister as being in special need. The interjection by the hon. Member for Leicester, South-West (Mr. Tom Boardman) was uncalled for. It is not a question of handling out praise but of what will be done about the matter. Are we certain that the guidelines are correct? To qualify for an allowance a person must be so severely disabled, physically or mentally, that he has, for six months or more, needed frequent attention throughout the day and repeated attention during the night.
I have raised two cases with the Secretary of State. One concerns a man aged 87. I must be careful what I say, because the family concerned are so independent that they do not want the neighbours to know of their problems. They carry a very heavy burden. It is always more difficult to get a wife to look after her father-in-law than to look after her own father. In this case the 87 years-old man is the husband's father. He has to be lifted in and out of bed and looked after throughout the day. He can stagger about slightly. He ought to be in a geriatric ward, cared for by the nation. That is the sort of case where we should be keen to make a small contribution, because by caring for the old man at home the couple are saving the State a considerable sum of money. All too often we place the responsibility on the sons and daughters of elderly people—children who are independently-minded, thoughtful and sympathetic. Therefore, we should look at the thousands of similar cases throughout the country.
My second case concerns a young lad with cerebral palsy, who has had difficulty in walking throughout his life. He is a very independent boy, who tried to earn his own living by typing, using his fore-

head, because he has no use of his left arm. With his right arm he can just hold someone's hand, but he has no grip. He walks with tremendous difficulty, and must be watched, but he is so independent that he gets about. He has been looked after by his parents since he was born. He will never be capable of earning a wage. With our present high rates of unemployment, someone 10 times less physically handicapped would have difficulty in finding a job.
His parents love him very dearly, and will look after him regardless of what the State does, but they feel that in other cases not so bad as their son's the allowance is being paid. They think that they themselves may have been a bit more open in filling in the form. I should just like to read one part of the form:

"Change position whilst in bed
Yes


Get out of bed … Yes, with someone at hand because of the tendency to fall



Walk
Yes"

I have seen this boy walk. He does so more by sheer determination than by physical ability. It continues:


"Use stairs
…
…
…
Yes"—

he crawls upstairs—


"Dress and undress
No


Wash
No


Bathe
No


Shave
No


Eat
No


Drink
Yes, through a straw


Go to the toilet
No"

In his 21st year, he has to be looked after.

I hope that the Government will examine such problems. If society cannot afford to help those looking after others in such circumstances, we are not carrying out our responsibility. There is a clear demarcation. One either claims £4·80 or has nothing at all. We should see whether a little other help can be given and make certain that our society looks after such people far better.

Society is being helped in cases like the first that I mentioned, because it is far better for an elderly parent to be kept at home, where he is looked after by those who love him and whom he loves, than to go to a geriatric ward.

Therefore, I appeal to the Minister, who I know is very kind-hearted, to make certain that the Cabinet opens the purse strings a little more, so that we can make


some contribution to help those many thousands of poor people to keep their loved ones at home without suffering too much financially.

11.8 p.m.

Mr. Cecil Parkinson: I thank the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Greville Janner) for raising the subject. At my advice bureaux over the past two months I have had a string of parents of mentally-handicapped children who are very perturbed that within the group of mentally-handicapped children in the town of Potters Bar, which is part of my constituency, certain children are being allowed the attendance allowance and a number of others, some of whom all the parents are agreed are possibly more deserving, are being refused the allowance.
I have looked into this problem in depth, to a certain degree. One of the aspects to which I would like to draw my hon. Friend's attention is that to some extent the disability of the child is not the governing factor; it is the lack of ability in his parents to articulate their problem. This means that parents who are not used to writing letters or explaining their problem are at a disadvantage compared with parents of a less disabled children who are good at putting their case.
Last Saturday, the secretary of a local group of the mentally disabled visited me and gave me a list—which I have passed on to my hon. Friend—of children whom she regarded as deserving of help but who were not getting it. Because she did not want to deprive any child already getting help, she did not list them, but she assured me that there were considerable numbers of them.
The constant attendance allowance must be universally welcomed. The Labour Government thought of it, and this Government carried it out. As a practical person, I tend to side with the people who have taken action, but I also admire those who thought of it. But I am worried. One can see the problem of people who cannot express themselves, compared with those who can. A system of allowances must not necessarily go to the group of people with the most ability to express themselves but who may not always be the most in need; it must be equally available to all in need of it.

I entirely agree that an allowance should be tailored to the needs of the individual case. I do not know how one gets over that difficulty. I know that it exists, and from my experience in my constituency I know that there is a danger of injustices being done. I do not think that the ability to explain the need ought in the end to determine the benefit.
I am told that good politicians produce answers and not questions, but in my brief experience in this House I have found that I am constantly being landed with problems, and am constantly writing to my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Government and handing the problems over to them. That is not very satisfying to me, and I am sure that it is infuriating to them. But there is a problem here. I do not know what the answer is, but I do not believe that we are on the right lines. The Government deserve great credit for introducing the constant attendance allowance, and the 78,000 people in receipt of it have undying gratitude to them for it. I urge my hon. Friend to think of a way of overcoming the problem which, in my own rather faltering way, I have tried to outline.

11.14 p.m.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: Probably every hon. Member over the last year or so has had many cases brought to his attention, many of them similar to those which hon. Members detailed tonight. The Minister has sent me letters on various occasions about such cases. I want to interpose my genuine appreciation of the courtesy with which he and his Department have always dealt with the cases that I have sent to them. I do not propose to detail those cases now, for I do not think that I would serve a useful purpose by doing so. I have found, however, that in about 75 per cent. of the cases that have been brought to my notice the original rulings have been reversed on appeal.
Although that indicates something to me I am not sure what it is. It may be, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) said, that there is something wrong with the initial procedure. The form that has to be completed is somewhat complicated. A more educated person would be better able to complete it in a manner which


would satisfy those concerned than would a less well educated person. It could be that the doctor's report goes through without the person concerned having been examined by that doctor.
There is also great confusion about the letter that refuses the allowance in the first instance. It is long and rather complicated, and it does not state clearly that there is a right of appeal. The letter is in a jargon that is difficult to understand. I have found that a number of my constituents did not ask for their cases to be reviewed because they did not know that they could do so. I therefore wrote to my local paper asking all whose cases had been turned down to send details to me, and those details I sent to the Minister. If they had not read the letter in the local paper I am certain that many of them would not have asked for a review. Now 75 per cent. of those cases have been granted on appeal. That can happen when an independent doctor makes a thorough examination of the person concerned.
The main stumbling block in difficult cases which have been refused is the phrase about constant attendance at night. Even the most disabled person usually sleeps at least part of the night, and it is very rare that one needs constant attendance at night. I appeal to the Minister, even at this late hour, to get on the telephone to No. 11 Downing Street and to say to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, "In your Budget tomorrow please do something about this problem." That message might not fall on deaf ears.

Mr. Eric Ogden: Paragraph 33(b).

Mr. Mitchell: I hope that it will be possible to extend this allowance to a greater range of people. The wide range of disability cases has been brought to the attention of many, including me, through this allowance. I did not appreciate that the range was so great, and I doubt whether the Minister did until so many cases were brought to his notice. Please, if possible, let us have an extension to a wider range at the earliest possible moment.

11.20 p.m.

Mr. David James: I want to subscribe to what the hon. Mem-

ber for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. R. C. Mitchell) said, and to the spirit in which he said it. This is undoubtedly a beneficent scheme, fulfilling a long-felt want. As the hon. Member pointed out, it has not worked out as happily as we would have liked. I rise because I have the Adjournment debate and have been kicking around the building, and also because I had a particularly tragic case brought to my attention only this morning. In my constituency I do not have surgeries, because it is made up of small villages. I live in the middle and my people come to see me on a Monday morning. I had an old gentleman come to see me. I will not mention him by name because I have not had a chance to tell the Minister about this case. He is aged 76. He had to retire prematurely because he had T.B. He also has angina.
His wife, who is a heavy woman, four years his senior, had a crippling stroke six years ago which left her paralysed down her left side. Two years ago she had a spasm which equally affected her right side, and I am afraid that she had another stroke last Thursday. What concerns me about this case is that my constituent applied about four months ago and he has not yet even got the initial decision. I understand that there has been a log-jam in the Department owing to the large number of cases with such an imaginative scheme. But for people of 76 and 80 four months is a great part of their lives. In the event, from what the man tells me, because the doctor has been to investigate the case, I feel it may be turned down.
When we are talking of constant attendance by night I can only say that this man, with a bad heart, had to manhandle his wife out of bed four times last night alone. Yet he apologised to me because he was ten minutes late this morning! I do not want to tear at heartstrings, but this is an infinitely tragic business. Like everyone else I fully accept the Government's good intentions. I fully understand that what they have designed is for the best—that this is a dummy run of an entirely new type of scheme. I accept the point made by others that in some cases this keeps people out of geriatric wards, but I urge the Minister to have a far-reaching look at the criteria underlying current assumptions to see whether this well-intentioned scheme cannot be improved.

11.24 p.m.

Mr. J. D. Concannon: I am not particularly concerned about who brought in this scheme, or about who gets the credit. What I am perturbed about is that no one is at present getting any credit. As it is working there is a lot of bitterness and anger among those who thought they would be entitled to it. Most Members have these tragic cases in their constituencies. We can all recite them. I welcome this scheme, but I want to see it extended and applied more fairly. I have gone to various homes in my constituency to see retired and injured miners, and I have helped them fill in these forms. This is a difficulty. I have sat there and actually filled in the forms for them because they have found it difficult to follow what it was about. They thought that if they filled in the form themselves they would not do it properly and that would count against them.
I sometimes filled in a form with my tongue in my cheek, thinking that the person concerned was not in such a bad way as the person whose form I had filled in last week, whose application was not accepted. My surgery is filled with people who are complaining that other people have qualified whereas they have not, although they are in a worse position.
We all give an unqualified welcome to the scheme, but we want to see it working better and more fairly. I do not want this scheme to go the way of other schemes. Problems arise not for the people receiving social security benefits but for those who are just beyond the point of entitlement. When the Labour Government made provision for cheap television licences for people living in old folks' homes. Members of Parliament had a lot of trouble explaining to people why they could not have cheap licences. I do not want this scheme to founder in that way.
I thank my hon. Friend for bringing up this subject, and I ask the Minister to make sure that this worthwhile scheme works more fairly.

Mr. Eric Ogden: Anyone looking at the Order Paper might have thought that a debate on the Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill would be a dull and dry affair, yet, as we have seen, it has encompassed the needs of the coal industry and the needs of

our constituents individually and collectively. It has probably not escaped the Minister's notice that this debate has produced more agreement between the two sides of the House than almost any other subject that we have discussed during the last two years. This is not pressure, or redress of grievance before taxation; this is showing a common concern from both sides of the House.
The debate highlights the dilemma of delegated legislation. Parliament introduces legislation, but individual cases cannot be decided by the Secretary of State, the Minister of State or the Parliamentary Under-Secretary; they have to go down the line to area boards and the good men and women who serve on them. The good decisions we accept without challenge. We may sometimes think that a constituent has been lucky, and we do not press it too far.
I understand that the Minister is to review the regulations and guide lines. I hope that I shall not embarrass him by saying that his Ministry has a particularly strong team and that he is known to be not only a competent but a compassionate and humane Minister.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Michael Alison): I thank the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Ogden: I will not ask too much from him in return for that expression of thanks. It is possible to draft new regulations and new guide lines, but a hint is as good as a nod to many people down the line.
It would be of some help if the Department were to make it known—not by any directive, but perhaps through the usual channels—that the Minister would look with favour, or even not look with disfavour, on area boards being as generous as possible within the rules and regulations. Let it be known that the Department is concerned about some of the anomalies and is willing to discuss how they can be overcome. In the meantime, the people with responsibility could be asked to help. That is the intention of the Act of Parliament, rather than that there should be a strict examination of any particular wording. If the hon. Gentleman seeks to show his Department's concern he will satisfy my demands at least for tonight.

11.31 p.m.

Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: I shall speak for only a minute, to add my name to those of hon. Members who have asked my hon. Friend to look at the workings of these provisions. There is a saying that one has to draw the line somewhere, and there is a deeper saying that the letter kills and the spirit gives life. The spirit in which the Government acted in bringing in the attendance allowances was right, and was endorsed in all parts of the House. All hon. Members know the difficulties that are being encountered. One cannot be too specific under the rules of order in trying to suggest a remedy, but we must all know what that remedy is.
Since we have with us a representative from the Treasury—the Financial Secretary—I hope that he will not mind my saying that his right hon. Friend at the Elephant and Castle has the reputation that at this time he has the Treasury eating out of his hand. I hope that he will soon prove once again that his intentions towards the disabled are as optimistic as anyone could wish, and that the Government will respond in the most generous fashion at an early date.

11.33 p.m.

Mr. Alfred Morris: This has been an extremely worthwhile debate, and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Greville Janner) has made a renewed and moving plea on behalf of his admirable young constituent. I had the pleasure last week of dining here with this heavily disabled little boy. He is a delightful child, with loving and devoted parents.
On the last occasion on which the attendance allowance was debated—on 21st February last—my right hon. and hon. Friends and I argued for an increase in the amount of the allowance and an easing in the rules of entitlement. Unfortunately, we were voted down. That was very sad, but the rules of order do not permit us to pursue all our arguments tonight. We must all recognise the limitations of this debate. It would, of course, require new legislation to change the regulations. The only thing we can discuss in this debate is the administration of the existing law.
What has been demonstrated in this debate is that there are many anomalies

in the administration of the attendance allowance. I understand that the Secretary of State has asked for the case of the boy from my hon. Friend's constituency to be looked into again. That must mean that the Secretary of State is uncertain whether it was right in that case to refuse the attendance allowance. I know that the Attendance Allowance Board will look as sympathetically as possible at any possibility of granting the allowance to this little boy.
There has been no animus in this debate. It appeared as if there might be when the hon. Member for Leicester, South-West (Mr. Tom Boardman) seemed to claim the copyright of the attendance allowance for his party. I take it that was a misunderstanding on his part. He was corrected by his hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Parkinson). As we have been reminded, the allowance was conceived and first proposed by the last Labour Government.
It is refreshing that hon. Members on both sides want to reach maximal agreement in discussions about disablement. I believe that the Under-Secretary would like very much to see an easing of the rigid rules of entitlement, and I hope that we shall hear from him that progress is likely to be made in easing the regulations at a very early date.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) spoke with all his customary wisdom. His speeches on this subject are always deeply felicitous. He reminded us that there are many cases of unattractive people requiring much more sympathy than they have received so far.
I want to refer briefly to the case of one very severely disabled woman who has been refused the attendance allowance. I quote from a statement made to me by her husband. He wrote:
My dear wife who is now 51 years of age has been completely housebound for 22 years. She suffers from anxiety neurosis and agro-phobia and has also had rheumatic fever three times. Nearly two years ago, her condition again worsened and she became confined completely to bed. She has tension in the throat and finds it very difficult to swallow—at one time, she could not even swallow liquid. I myself have not been out of our front door since March 1967.
The attendance allowance was refused in that case.
We were told in our recent debate by the hon. Member for Cornwall, North


(Mr. Pardoe) of another deeply disturbing refusal to pay the allowance to a very grievously disabled man.
I am glad that an hon. Member opposite referred to the problems experienced by the parents of mentally handicapped children in this connection. I have recently been in touch with the Secretary of State on behalf of the South Manchester Mentally Handicapped Children's Parents' Association. I have told the Minister that children with exactly the same condition and in exactly the same circumstances are being treated differently in neighbouring localities. Some are receiving the allowance. Others are not.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) was eminently justified in saying that it is the anomalies that have arisen which are of very special concern to right hon. and hon. Members on both sides.
The mother of one mentally handicapped person who has been refused the allowance writes:
My daughter, Victoria Susan, will be 26 on the 22nd March, 1972. She looks like a 10 year old but is not capable of doing some things that a 2 year old child could do with ease. She has to be assisted with bathing, washing, dressing, eating … She can only say a few words and cannot say her own name properly …
Few would deny that this is a disabled person who is in need of constant attention. People with exactly the same condition have been granted the allowance in other localities. I hope that the Undersecretary will recognise that we are very disturbed by the anomalies that have been set in relief by the debate, as by previous debates on this deeply important subject.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. R. C. Mitchell) suggested that the Under-Secretary should telephone the Chancellor of the Exchequer saying that there would be a convenient opportunity in the Budget tomorrow afternoon to satisfy the wishes of both sides of the House. We now have the Financial Secretary of the Treasury with us. He will want to facilitate the passing of the message. I am sure that he is now convinced of the strength of feeling on both sides of the House on this issue.
There is a rumour abroad, indeed there has been definite Press reporting—to the effect, that the Government intend

to grant the attendance allowance to the constituent of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Greville Janner). Last Saturday's Daily Expressstated:
Now the Social Services Ministry is expected to announce new rules for cash help for the disabled. A new rate for those like Jimmy who need daytime attendance—expected to be more than half the full allowance—will probably be announced next week.
I hope that the Under-Secretary will now confirm or deny such reports. We for our part hope that the report is accurate. If it is not, I hope that the Minister will say so tonight in order not to excite false hopes among the severely disabled.
I ask the Under-Secretary to respond sympathetically and constructively to all the points that have been raised. I am satisfied that the hon. Gentleman will want this debate to be marked with a statement of some importance from his Department. I know that he will do everything he can to see that this debate ends on a constructive and purposeful note by making the fullest possible statement in reply.

11.45 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Michael Alison): If only the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. R. C. Mitchell) had made that suggestion 40 minutes ago—before the eleventh hour—Imight have been able to do something for him but he has unfortunately missed the opportunity, even with my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary so close to us.
At the outset, in order to put the hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris) out of his misery I must eschew the temptation to say anything about burdens which may or may not fall upon the public purse in future, because that would be entirely out of order in this debate. We can debate only the burdens which now fall upon the Treasury, so I hope that the hon. Gentleman will excuse me from making any reference, or rising to the tempting bait that he set before me to refer to what might happen in the future.
I ought also, to apologise to the House for standing here tonight in place of my hon. Friend the Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean), who is away indisposed—I hope temporarily.
As regards the case of James Martin, which has inspired the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Greville Janner) to raise in the House today general problems, related to the attendance allowance for limbless and other disabled people, when my right hon. Friend met the hon. and learned Gentleman with James Martin and his family at the House last Tuesday, he undertook to ask the Attendance Allowance Board to reconsider Jimmy's case. The hon. Member for Wythenshawe referred to that. My right hon. Friend has written to the Chairman of the Board putting to the Board a formal application for a review. Any question whether Jimmy satisfies the conditions for the allowance must be regarded as sub judice, and in those circumstances it would be improper for me to pursue his case.
I should, however, like to do two things—first, to pay tribute, as I am sure we all would, to Jimmy's spirit and the devoted care given to him by his parents and, secondly, to reiterate what my right hon. Friend said when talking to the hon. and learned Gentleman and to the Martins, namely, that he was anxious not to raise false hopes. On the one hand the Attendance Allowance Board is an entirely independent body, and on the other, in exercising its judicial function in relation to individual cases it is bound by the statutory conditions that have been approved by Parliament.
Against the background of an almost unanimous expression of view, it is worth staying that this is not a proper area for party political warfare, since the allowance was conceived under the previous Administration and born under this one. It is, nevertheless, fair to invite hon. Gentlemenopposite—particularly the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-West, who made a vigorous and almost attacking speech—to bear in mind, if they consider it fair and proper for hon. Members to raise anomalies which they find in the operation of the Act, that it is an Act which Parliament approved, and that every hon. Member takes some responsibility for the Act as it stands, whatever the defects that we may be finding in it in practice. It is an Act of necessary dual parentage, in party political terms, and the hon. and learned Gentleman has as much responsibility for

its failure to help Jimmy Martin as I have. None of us would differ on that.

Mr. Greville Janner: We must change it.

Mr. Alison: The hon. and learned Gentleman says that we must change it, but that lies in the future. There has been no lack of suggestions as to how it may be changed, and I believe that that spirit is widely shared in the House. Indeed, my right hon. Friend has made it clear that this was a first step, and we need no pushing to conceive of the possibility of subsequent steps.
There is one other point about Jimmy Martin's case on which the hon. and learned Gentleman asked for information from my right hon. Friend at the interview, and to which he referred in his letter of 16th March. In connection with the determination that has been given on review in Jimmy's case it is possible to bring an appeal to a National Insurance Commissioner, obviously with the leave of such a Commissioner, as must normally be achieved, on a question of law.
I would advise the honourable and learned Member that the time taken to deal with such an appeal is very much a matter for the National Insurance Commissioner, who is also quite independent of my right hon. Friend's Department. The hon. and learned Member will note that an appeal can be brought only with the leave of the Commissioner. Since a further review by the board has been set in motion the hon. and learned Member may think that at this point of time the possibility of an appeal on a question of law may be left, notwithstanding that the normal three months' time limit from the date of the review determination, on 3rd January, for applying for leave will expire at the beginning of next month. There will, of course, be a further right of appeal—subject to leave being granted—in connection with the further review which the Board will now be undertaking—and which, no doubt, will take some time to complete. I understand that, so far, no appeals have been heard by the Commissioner.
In one respect I am particularly glad that the hon. and learned Member has given me, by raising this matter this evening, the opportunity to say something about the attendance allowance. Over the period of nine months or so


since we started the take-on of claims in June, 1971, more than 140,000 claims to attendance allowance have been received and over 15,000 applications for review. Clearly the Board could not handle all those claims and reviews itself, and it exercised power given to it by the Act to delegate its functions in respect of individual cases to medical practitioners. This it has done, to medical practitioners operating in the 10 English regional centres and at Edinburgh, Glasgow and Cardiff. The more arduous task of dealing with applications for review has in general been delegated to medical staff of my Department working at the Department's Central Office at Norcross, Blackpool.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) mentioned people knowing about the possibility of a review. When the medical requirements have not been satisfied, a letter notifying the "failure" is sent to the claimant. The same letter contains full details of the possibility not only of a tribunal but of a review.
The hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen complained that the letter was a little obscure. We have taken that point. A revised version which he may not have seen is now in the pipeline, and may be in operation.

Mr. Greville Janner: Have not some 68 per cent. of all appeals succeeded? If so, does that not suggest that the original criteria applied by the Board are very stiffly applied, and that some steps could be taken by way of direction from the Department?

Mr. Alison: That was another point made by the hon. Member for Southampton Itchen. Yes, a high percentage—I believe that it is 70 per cent.—succeed on review. But that is a little misleading, because when refusals occur in the first instance and review applications come in some of them are very straightforward, some call for further evidence, and some have to be referred to the Board because they are cases of special difficulty.
The easy ones are decided promptly. This gives rise to the rather high success on review percentage which I have already quoted. If we take into account the other two categories and lump those in—they are much less likely to be successful—the average tends to be brought

down. Therefore, the high review figure is misleading. It has to do not only with the circumstances which I have just described but with the build up of case law in this sphere.

Mr. Ashley: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that every hon. Member has in his postbag evidence that many severely disabled people fail to understand the provisions on the form? Many people simply do not know that they can appeal or apply for what the Minister calls a review. The word "review" is misleading. Could not the form be changed, so that it simply says, "Your application has been rejected", when it is rejected, "but you are entitled to appeal against this decision"? The terminology is important to ordinary people.

Mr. Alison: I will try to answer the hon. Gentleman's misgivings by sending him a copy of the latest letter of refusal, which is in draft, to see whether he thinks it is sufficiently clear in setting before applicants the possibility of having a second bite at the cherry. We are confident that it sets out clearly the further opportunities available.
My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Parkinson), in a moving and helpful speech, referred to the lack of articulation of some of his constituents who are unable to express the full circumstances affecting themselves or members of their families. I can assure him that in cases of refusal there automatically follows a call on the family concerned by a medical practitioner—not the family doctor—whose job it is, upon a review being applied for, to look at the circumstances of the individual applicant. I believe that lack of articulation in these circumstances can still be compensated for by the personal experience of the visiting medical practitioner.
I should like to take this opportunity of expressing again our and the Board's confidence in the medical practitioners who have been involved. There have been many of them. They have performed a magnificent task over recent months, and without them there could have been no attendance allowance.
It is deplorable that in the wave of—perhaps understandably—emotional publicity surrounding Jimmy Martin's case there should have been uninformed criticism of the Board and of the doctor


who dealt with Jimmy's case, without regard to what the attendance allowance is really all about, and what the Board's limitations are. It is governed by what Parliament has decided and what every hon Member saw fit to pass without Division at the time of the original Act. The Board and its delegates carry out the law which we have made both humanely and imaginatively. The Act makes it quite clear that the attendance allowance is awarded on the basis of the degree of attention or supervision needed and not on the basis of the cause of disability which gives rise to that need for attendance.
In saying that, I do not want in any sense to derogate from the claims made upon the community and its services by those severely disabled people, including children, who have parts of two, three or even four limbs deficient. It is an attendance allowance, and was conceived as such; it is not a broader disability allowance.
I wish to put the matter in a wider perspective. I am advised—and I can say this with confidence—that over the last months those who have been closely involved in dealing with applications for the allowance have undergone a heartrending experience. This is true not only of the Department's lay staff but of those who are medical men with wide experience of illness and disability, members of the Board and their delegates.
On them in particular has lain the responsibility of making decisions which can lighten the burdens of a sorely-tried family or disappoint them. I was shocked to hear of the case to which my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North (Mr. David James) referred. It sounds as if something went wrong with the documentation, I can assure him that I shall look closely into the case when his letter is at hand.
I will give the House some examples of the sort of cases with which those responsible must deal, and if I relate them solely to children it is because this debate arose from the case of a child. If I limit them to particular groups it is because my time is limited, and disablement is almost unlimited in the way in which it can arise and provide a need.
The first group of children about whom I wish to talk are those who suffer from

the effects of a tragic condition, of which examples will be known to hon. Members, namely, spina bifida. The children about whom I am thinking particularly are the ones in whom the effects are so bad that they are completely paralysed from the waist down. Not all of them are as bad as that, but there are thousands who, even after the spinal defect is repaired, are left with no muscular power and no feeling at all from the waist down.
With such loss of muscular power they cannot walk and so, for mobility, rely on a wheel chair. But that is not all. They are also incontinent of both bowel and bladder, and I can leave it to the imagination of hon. Members to comprehend what this means in the way of attention. Moreover, I am advised that this incontinence in these children can lead to additional complications. Many of them have had surgical treatment to cope with their urinary incontinence and the effect is, in simple terms, to drain their water through a hole in the lower part of their body into a plastic bag.
Some of these children have the added trouble of a condition known as hydro-cephalus. In the old days it was called water on the brain. It can now be relieved by a tube running from the head down into the upper part of the body, complete with valve. Despite their problems, many of these children and bright and cheerful. Some have the added burden of mental handicap. Probably about 2,000 of these children have qualified for the allowance, but others, though severely disabled by this condition, have not qualified where they require little or no attention during the night.
However, we can feel some sense of relief in the knowledge that the terrible sorts of condition that I have been describing have brought children into benefit in this regard, to the great relief and spirit of hope of long-suffering and courageous parents.
I turn the attention of the House to the problems, with which the hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe dealt—he rightly described these children as some of the most needy among the handicapped—of having mentally handicapped children in the home. Mental handicap, like other causes of disablement, covers a wide range. But there are in the community devoted parents


looking after mentally handicapped children—some of them no longer children in the accepted sense of the word—who are very severely disabled indeed.
Many of them go to special schools, but for others that is not possible. Some are ineducable, difficult to train in even the most elementary matters, hyper-active, aggressive and destructive. Some are physically handicapped as well, and need cleaning up in the night. Some are active in the night and need to be stopped from getting into a dangerous situation both by night and by day.
Some of these children are a wearing burden to their parents, who none the less accept that burden willingly and cheerfully, both by day and by night, and I am glad to inform the House that about 8,500 mentally handicapped including children, have qualified for the attendance allowance. Here again is a good step forward in relieving human misery as a result of what Parliament has accepted as a first stage.
I could go on much longer telling the House about the problems of some of the disabled people in this country, including children, who are all among the most disabled members of the community. I hope that what I have said will illustrate, without seeking to detract from the devoted care given to Jimmy Martin by his parents, that there are many others of whose problems we are deeply aware, and that the attendance allowance is helping large numbers to a considerable extent. That is the answer that I give to a rhetorical question which a newspaper leading article asked last week. "Who does qualify for the allowance?", was the question. The answer is that by now 75,000 of the most severely disabled members of the community qualify, some 18,000 of them being children. The figure of 75,000 represents 50 per cent. more awards already than the total of 50,000 which we origin ally estimated on the basis of figures from the O.P.C.S. Survey.

Mr. Alfred Morris: How many applications have been rejected?

Mr. Alison: The figure of applications that I gave earlier was about 140,000, and it is about a 62 per cent. success rate overall. A total of 50,000 awards

was the original estimate, and we have exceeded that, with our total of 75,000, by about 50 per cent. Over 10,000 claims remain to be dealt with. More are continuing to come in, at an average rate of about 2,000 a week, and have done so even in the last four weeks. Those who qualify include the very severely disabled limbless, equally with other very severely disabled people. Moreover, whereas we originally estimated that there would be roughly one successful award to every two claims, the average success rate up to 14th March was 62 per cent.
For children, hon. Members—particularly the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North West—will be interested to know that the success rate is as high as 75 per cent., and is well above the average for adults. I have just been advised that the total number rejected, including those not reviewed, is 48,000.
I conclude by saying that we have never pretended that the attendance allowance as it now it would meet the needs of all disabled people. Again and again my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary have said that we regard it as only a start, and that that start would help only the most severely disabled members of our community who need the most care, by night as well as by day. This is the clear and distinct principle, of the need for the double attention, on which the present law stands. However, we have always said that we hope to extend that principle, bringing in much larger numbers. But that would require legislation, and discussion of that is out of order in the present context.
I am glad, however, that we have had the debate today. It has given me an opportunity to put some of these issues before the House in their wider perspective. It has enabled the House to reflect once again on the tragic cases which show that legislation which the whole House wished to accept was justifiably called the first step. Every case that has been spoken about tonight will be carefully weighed and pondered by my right hon. Friend and by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary. It will reinforce our determination to consider the first step as only the first step, and to look forward as soon as we can to expanding the range of the attendance allowance.

VEHICLE AND GENERAL INSURANCE (TRIBUNAL)

12.9 a.m.

Mr. Emlyn Hooson: My hon. Friends and I wish to raise the question of the provisions of Class III, Vote 12, sub-head e.2 of the Supplementary Estimates. Under the heading, "Civil Cases", there is an increase in the present provision of £250,000 to the revised provision of £438,000, and by way of explanation, under the sub-head are these words:
Unusually expensive cases, particularly the Vehicle and General Tribunal of Inquiry.
I understand that in the latter to my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe), the Prime Minister disclosed that the actual cost of the inquiry was about £150,000 and that the remainder of the balance is taken up by some other sum.
The tribunal was set up under an appointment which appears at the commencement of the report signed by the Home Secretary, where it says that it was established to inquire into a definite matter of urgent public importance. It then set out certain issues in relation to the circumstances leading up to the cessation of trading by the Vehicle and General Insurance Company. There were three paragraphs, the first relating to whether certain documents or other information were improperly disclosed or obtained and whether, should that be shown to be the case, any use was made of such information for the purpose of private advantage.
The second concerned the question whether there was negligence or misconduct by persons in the service of the Crown directly or indirectly responsible for the discharge in relation to those companies, of functions under the Insurance Companies Acts, 1958–67.
The third asked whether there was any evidence that the interests of policy-holders or shareholders were adversely affected as a result of any impropriety, negligence or misconduct found to have occurred.
A very distinguished panel was appointed to serve on the tribunal under the chairmanship of Mr. Justice James, who is renowned, among other things, for

his prodigious energy and industry—qualitieswhich were no doubt adequately displayed in the conduct of this inquiry. He was assisted by two very distinguished members of the legal profession. The importance of the inquiry could be illustrated by the fact that the policy-holders apparently lost £10 million and the shareholders lost £10 millions in the cessation of trading of the company. The report discloses that from the 1963 accounts the company was suspect, although the law at that time permitted the Board of Trade action only in the case of insolvency, and therefore no question of negligence arose before the 1967 Companies Act come into force on 27th July, 1967.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): The hon. and learned Gentleman probably realises the difficulty which the House and the Chair are in. I am sure he will have read the letter his hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) received. It is very difficult to make a speech which will be in order, but I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman will try to keep in order. I hope that he will try to observe the terms of the letter, which I will observe to see that order is obtained.

Mr. Hooson: I have these problems very much in mind. I think that I am within the terms of order, as will appear from what I am about to say. The Board of Trade could have acted under the 1967 Act as soon as it came into force, and the inquiry concluded that Mr. Jardine, an under-secretary, was negligent, and that Mr. Homewood and Mr. Steel, two assistant Secretarys, were to be criticised. No other servant of the Crown, whether senior civil servant or Minister, was held to be negligent for not exercising powers under the 1967 Act, and it was pointed out that no such allegation was made before the tribunal.
I hope that you will appreciate the point that I am going to raise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on the provision under the Vote, because under the Tribunals of Inquiry Act, 1921, no provision is made for the payment of legal representation of people whose conduct may be under review by tribunal. Nevertheless, the tribunal has the right to recommend that ex gratia payments be made to those who are legally represented and I understand


that such payments have been recommended in this case. I do not know how many ex gratia payments have been made, and to whom. That is information to which the House is entitled before it approves the Vote.
The gentleman who has been most criticised, and held to have been negligent—Mr. Jardine—was unfortunately not legally represented before the tribunal. No doubt representations will be made to the appropriate authority by the Civil Service Union and those who look after his interests. But it transpires that Mr. Burr, the ex-managing director of the company, also clearly represented to the tribunal that he would have wished to be legally represented. It was clearly important, as the conduct of these two gentlemen was obviously to be reviewed—and might well be reviewed critically by the tribunal—that both should have had independent legal representation to look after their interests. When Mr. Burr indicated that he would like to be legally represented he made it a kind of precondition that he would like a guarantee from the tribunal that all his legal costs would be met. We can understand a private individual's requiring such a guarantee, because the cost could have broken him, as the tribunal went on for a long time.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Patrick Jenkin): I think that the hon. Gentleman said "Mr. Burr." I wonder whether he meant Mr. Hunt.

Mr. Hooson: I am greatly obliged to the Financial Secretary for putting me right on that point. I meant the ex-managing director, Mr. Hunt.
The tribunal did not have the power to give the guarantee. Therefore, Mr. Hunt was not legally represented. Nobody looked after his interests. Mr. Jardine, the civil servant who was criticised and found negligent by the tribunal, had nobody to look after his interests. It is true that learned counsel were briefed on behalf of the Department of Trade and Industry, but we can conceive of circumstances in which the interests of the Department might well clash with the interests of an individual employed within it. It might well be in the interests of the Department that blame should attach to an individual within it, yet the Department generally be cleared. Counsel

appearing for an individual working within a Department might in certain circumstances find it prudent in the interests of his client to widen the scope of an inquiry on a particular point. That might well have happened if Mr. Jardine had been separately represented.
This was a very important inquiry, involving investigation into the lass of a great deal of money and the professional conduct of civil servants and, we would think, also the political conduct of certain Ministers—although no Ministers were called as witnesses—and into the professional behaviour of people who had held important positions in the company. It is therefore of the greatest importance and interest to the public to know what ex gratia payments for legal representatives have been made. I am not particularly interested in the amounts, but I want to inquire to whom they were made. Does the Financial Secretary think that the tribunal was right in telling Mr. Hunt that no guaranteee could be given that his legal expenses would be met? One would have thought that if he were going to be represented he would want to know before he incurred the bill who was going to meet it.
I also want to know whether anyone who applied to the tribunal for an ex gratiapayment for his costs to be met was refused. It is very important to know on what grounds a refusal is based. Or is it becoming a virtual convention that where one is legally represented and clearly has some kind of interest in the proceedings there will almost inevitably be a recommendation by the tribunal that an ex gratia payment should be made? Does the ex gratia payment meet the total cost incurred by the applicant? Are there any cases where, after a recommendation for an ex gratia payment has been made, the Treasury has refused to meet the payment? We have a right to have answers to all these questions.
I would like to widen greatly the scope of my probing, but I concede that within the scope of the letter that was directed to my hon. Friend it would be difficult for me to do so, and I know that my right hon. and hon. Friends too would like to probe the matter further. The preliminary information that I have sought would be of the great importance, and would also serve to enlarge our range of knowledge for the much wider debate


which inevitably must come on this subject.
Clearly, the country is disturbed not at the findings so much as at the way in which the findings are achieved under a tribunal of inquiry of this kind. As you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, from your long experience in this House, some politicians have had reason to complain about the findings of a tribunal of inquiry, but on this occasion it is probable that the civil servants have done most of the complaining; it is they who feel that they have ground for complaint, and it is of considerable signifiance that a finding of ultimate responsibility was made concerning a civil servant who occupied the position of under-secretary but that no Ministers and few senior civil servants were called. All these matters can be investigated in the future, but it would greatly help us in our inquiries into this matter if we could have answers to the questions that I have posed.

12.23 a.m.

Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: I seek to raise only one matter briefly, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You have courteously indicated that you have taken into consideration the letter that the Public Bill Office was kind enough to send to my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) setting out the position which, in your view, restricts the debate. I do not seek to challenge your ruling, but I believe that unless we put on the record the views that we have on the legal position of tribunals set up under the 1921 Act we shall, in effect, be making case law which may be binding on the House of Commons for the future. It is very important that we should see these things in perspective.
Two things are taken from "Erskine May". In reverse order, there is, first, the reference to page 725 of the 18th Edition, from which I do not in any way dissent. It virtually says that when the conduct of a Minister or a senior civil servant is in doubt, or is subject to criticism, it can be debated only on a substantive Motion of the House. There is, secondly, the reference to pages 361 to 362 of "Erskine May", in which the same principle is related, namely, that one can question the conduct of a judicial court only by substantive Motion. I ask

rhetorically, because I think this terribly important, that we should establish whether we are dealing with a judicial court.
The tribunal to which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) referred was set up by the Home Secretary and assigned by him on 28th April, 1971. It was set up pursuant to Section 1 of the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act. That is a very short Act. In effect it says that when Parliament has resolved that there is a matter of definite importance a tribunal may be set up and—I paraphrase, I hope accurately—in order that it may discharge its functions it shall be given certain powers—powers to compel the attendance of witnesses and examine them on oath, to compel the production of documents, and to take evidence abroad. Then a very interesting passage follows. If a witness who is summoned refuses to appear, defaults in attending, refuses to answer questions or to produce any document required of him, or does anything which, had the tribunal been a court of law, would have been a contempt of court, the tribunal has power to refer those matters to a court of law to deal with as that court thinks fit. In other words, the tribunal is invested with many of the powers of a court of law in order to make effective its deliberations, but by the very definition of the 1921 Act it is not a court of law, and there is no case law in my experience, nor is there any statutory authority, for saying that it is a court of law.
If that be so, it follows that the reference on page 361 in "Erskine May" to a court which may not be questioned save by substantive resolution cannot and does not apply in this case. The mere fact that an eminent member of that tribunal happened to be a High Court judge is purely coincidental. He was sitting not as a puisne judge but as a distinguished lawyer, empanelled for that purpose. I therefore think it very important that—perhaps not at this stage, but for the future—before the Public Bill Office comes to the decision that a tribunal set up under the 1921 Act is a judicial court, it should consider the matter very carefully, because, in my submission, although it is a tribunal invested by the 1921 Act with many of the powers


of a court of law, the mere fact that it has to refer alleged contempt to a court of law is proof positive that it is not a court of law in its own right.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman, and I am very interested in his exposition. The matter ought to be put the other way, because my interpretation of the Act is that it is a tribunal vested with all the powers of a High Court except in one respect that the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned which takes away those powers. Otherwise the words are:
The tribunal shall have all such powers, rights and privileges that are vested in the High Court, or in Scotland, in the Court of Session.
It is a question of what we take this to mean. I think that I am bound to put it the way I am putting it to the right hon. Gentleman, and I hope that he will accept it from me.

Mr. Thorpe: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not wish to argue that point at this stage, save to say that it is not, with respect, taking away those powers. Under the 1921 Act I accept that a tribunal is granted many powers which one would normally expect of a judicial court, but it is expressly excluded from having the power to commit for contempt, and therefore it is not what is taken away. If you were given learned advice on that basis it is as fallacious as the first advice that we submitted.
This power was deliberately not granted by Parliament because Parliament determined that this tribunal should be a forum with lesser powers than a judicial court, for which reason the final power of sending a man to prison for contempt or for fining him was expressly denied to the tribunal, because it was not to have all the powers and trappings of a judicial court. They were still to be retained in the hands of the judicial courts.
I do not argue it further. I accept that view at the moment, but I respectfully suggest that if this contention is persisted in it is bad law. It is not an interpretation which I suggest any lawyer would put on the Act after mature consideration, and I hope that it is a precedent which will not be persisted in. If, for the purposes of the debate,

I accept this—although intelectually I reject it—I am entitled to ask, first, the question put by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson). To what extent was that £150,000 money that we are expected to vote, taken up with ex gratiapayments to persons represented at the tribunal? Secondly, bearing in mind this large sum of money, does the House feel that the taxpayer has had value for money?
I appreciate that I cannot go deeply into this matter, but the House is entitled to ask whether the tribunal felt that it had sufficient staff and accommodation to enable it to call on the witnesses it wished to see. Why, for example, when no less than six senior Ministers were involved, was not one called to give evidence or to give his own account? Why, when 18 senior civil servants were involved, were only a handful called to give an account of their responsibilities, and why did the tribunal not feel able, before it passed severe judgment on one civil servant, to confront him with the charges of negligence that it subsequently found against him without giving him an opportunity—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I will have to find that remark out of order. Up to then the right hon. Gentleman was in order.

Mr. Thorpe: Having accepted your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may I say that we are entitled to ask whether the taxpayer has had value for money. The Financial Secretary may feel that he cannot go into these matters as fully as he would wish, owing to the restricted rules of order. I hope that he will be able to say that even though he feels restricted tonight, when the Government have considered the various representations which have only recently been received and in respect of which it is desirable to allow them time for the fullest consideration, they will come before the House and give a full account not only of how this money was spent and why this increase of £150,000 is necessary, but also of the whole conduct of this tribunal which, frankly those of us on this bench find disquieting in the extreme.

12.35 a.m.

Mr. John Pardoe: We are debating the Second Reading of


a Bill which authorises past and future expenditure of £1,630 million which, even by comparison with tomorrow's gifts and goodies, is a large sum of money and therefore important. Within that total we are referring in this debate to Class III, Vote 12, e.2 of the Supplementary Estimates and to the rise in the provision for civil cases of £188,000, from £250,000 to £438,000. We are asking what exactly that expenditure consists of, what has it been spent on, and whether it is right for us to support that expenditure.
A note contained in the Estimate refers to unusually expensive cases, particularly the Vehicle and General Tribunal of Inquiry. That mention enables us to raise this matter tonight in spite of the terms of the letter that I received from the Public Bill Office. I recognise that there are difficulties in the narrowness of the debate.
How much did the tribunal cost? My right hon. Friend the Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) have mentioned a letter which I received from the Prime Minister. When the Prime Minister made his statement on 16th February I asked him specifically if he would tell us the cost of the tribunal, and he said that he would let me know in due course. This he did in a letter dated 6th March, in which he said:
Final figures are not yet available but it seems likely that the cost of the tribunal and of the printing and publication of the report will be of the order of £150,000. This figure does not include expenditure on the payment of salaries which would have fallen on the Government in any case.
We are entitled to ask whether the taxpayer had value for money by that expenditure. I am well aware of the limitations that have been placed on the scope of the debate, but we nevertheless have a duty to probe the value-for-money angle, and it is impossible to do so without asking far-reaching questions about the tribunal and its report.
I have been informed that it would not be in order to discuss the procedure or findings of the tribunal, as to do so would be to question the decision or conduct of a judicial court, and such matters can be raised only on a substantive Motion. My right hon. Friend and my hon. and learned Friend have already

quoted the relevant passages from "Erskine May", including the passage which relates to a judicial court. The assumption is that the tribunal is a judicial court, and I do not wish to follow my hon. and learned Friend down the legal path of defining exactly what is a court, although anyone who thinks that the definition of "court" given in Halsbury applies to this tribunal is an extremely clever person with immense powers of imagination.
Surely a judicial court would ensure that those brought before it were charged at the commencement of proceedings. I have always understood that one characteristic of a judicial court was that no charges were made until the last few days, and then only by inference, yet persons were found guilty and one was found guilty of negligence—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is beginning to get out of order. I hope that he will manage to follow the excellent example of his right hon. and hon. and learned Friends and stay within order.

Mr. Pardoe: Not being a lawyer, I am not sure of the exact definition of a judicial court. I am not implying any criticism of the tribunal, which I gather I am not allowed to do. I am saying that certain things that it did would not be done by a judicial court. Therefore, I ask in the logic of the layman—though not perhaps in the logic of the lawyer—can it be a judicial court? Since you have requested that I shall not pursue that matter, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and in view of the promises that we have made that we shall not raise points of order all night and will set a good example to others, I shall seek to pursue as lightly different course.
We have been told that this matter can be raised only on a substantive Motion, and there is no doubt that we would have preferred this debate to be on a substantive Motion in which we would have been happy to ask the House to reject the report and its findings. We have been denied a debate on a substantive Motion—not tonight, but we have pressed in the last few weeks for a debate and have been met with a straight bat and a pained glance.
I want to try to retrace the history of the matter. On 15th February the report


was published and on 16th February the Prime Minister made his statement, in which he said
I do not propose to add any further comments on the report today. It is long and necessary intricate and requires time for study. In particular, the officials concerned and their staff associations need to have an adequate opportunity to consider it, and to make observations to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. When this has been done, should any further statement be necessary, it will, of course, be made to the House.
I did not read anything into that remark other than straightforwardness. Perhaps I should have suspected more. His statement neither accepted nor rejected the report—a £150,000 report involving the loss to shareholders of £10 million and the loss to policy holders of another £10 million. Yet the Prime Minister was not sure whether there would be need for a further statement. Then, in the next column, the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition said that
hon. Members may want a debate."—[Official Report, 16th February, 1972; Vol. 831, cols. 423–4.]
Perhaps I am being too suspicious in reading into that remark that it might be convenient for people on all sides if hon. Members did not want a debate.
Nothing more was heard. We left the matter for the three weeks for which the Prime Minister had asked, and still nothing was done. On 9th March we tabled Early Day Motion No. 247—not, alas, a substantive Motion—which mentioned certain aspects of this matter and called for a debate. I raised the matter at Business Questions on that day and was told by the Leader of the House:
I certainly appreciate the importance of what the hon. Member says, particularly about this affecting the staff, which is, I accept, a grave matter. I cannot say when a statement will be made, nor the time when it will be debated. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister promised a debate on this matter in Government time, and there will be a debate. However, I will refer what the hon. Gentleman says to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry."—[Official Report, 9th March, 1972; Vol. 832, col. 1670.]
Another straight bat! By last Thursday we had still not heard anything further about a debate, and there was nothing in the business statement. I tried to raise the matter again, and in fact it was raised by a Conservative Member. Much the same answer was given to him by the Leader of the House. That is the posi-

tion in which we find ourselves, and it is the reason why my right hon. Friend, my hon. and learned Friend and I have found it necessary to raise this matter, so far as we are able, on the Bill.
The Government come to the House on the Bill to ask for money to pay for this tribunal. They are asking for it without sufficient explanation. They are asking for money for a report which they have neither accepted nor rejected. They have not told us what they intend to do about it, or about its recommendations.
How do we know whether the public should pay for this report? We are left to draw our own conclusions and, having looked through the report, our conclusions are not favourable. Since it cost £150,000, we must first ask whether it did what we asked it to do. I remind hon. Members that it was this House of Commons which asked the tribunal to do certain things. The preamble to the report says:
Whereas it has been resolved by both Houses of Parliament that it is expedient that a Tribunal be established …
Paragraph (b) of its terms of reference says:
Whether there was negligence or misconduct by persons in the service of the Crown directly or indirectly responsible for the discharge, in relation to those companies, of functions under the Insurance Companies Acts 1958–67.
The question which immediately arises out of that is how it could possibly decide whether there was negligence or misconduct by persons in the service of the Crown, directly or indirectly responsible, if it never asked a large number of those persons to appear before it. That is the point that my right hon. and hon. Friends have made already. Not one Minister was called before it—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but that is a criticism of the findings of the court, which is out of order.

Mr. Pardoe: I accept your point immediately. I am not endeavouring to criticise the findings of the tribunal—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I include the actual proceedings before the tribunal comes to its findings.

Mr. Pardoe: Of course—and if more than £150,000 had been spent, no doubt additional persons would have been


called to give evidence. Undoubtedly Mr. Jardine would have been represented if he had been promised that he would be awarded his costs, and any counsel for him or for other individual members who were blamed in the report, partially or otherwise, would have sought to widen the debate and ensure that other people were questioned. Certainly no counsel for Mr. Jardine could have done other than call Ministers to give evidence.

Mr. Thorpe: Would it not also be in order not merely to ask whether we had value for money but whether, having regard to what we have got, the tribunal had enough money to do the job properly, or whether there will be another Supplementary Estimate?

Mr. Pardoe: I am sure, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you would rule that that is in order. I cannot conceive that it is out of order to query whether enough money was spent. Had all the civil servants who were involved at the end of the inquiry been represented a great deal more money would have been required.
I shall not continue to press the point about the calling of Ministers. I ask one simple, basic question: who made the decision about not calling Ministers? I do not blame the tribunal. It may not have been its decision. It may have been the decision of leading counsel for the tribunal—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am afraid that that is out of order, too. It is impossible to be in order and to criticise the work of and what was said by counsel in the case.

Mr. Pardoe: I am aware that it might be out of order to discuss the work of the Attorney-General in connection with the tribunal. But he is the leading Law Officer in the service of the Crown, which may have been one reason why he was called to be the senior counsel for the tribunal.
On the question of awarding costs, it seems to me that the Prime Minister's letter does not go very far. I hope that the Financial Secretary will be able to clear up many of the points that have been raised. As has been indicated already, the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act, 1921, gives power to authorise a person to be legally repre-

sented, but gives no power to award him costs from the State, and legal aid is not available, of course.
For that reason, if for no other, the eventual scapegoat—scapegoats, I suppose; Mr. Jardine, Mr. Homewood, and Mr. Steel—were not legally represented. I shall not go into the other reasons why they were not represented. They would be out of order in this debate. In debate they will come up later. The Department was represented. The tribunal no doubt thought that that was fair representation for the individuals.
I reiterate the question—did the tribunal recommend an ex gratia payment to anyone, and, if so, to whom? Was it offered to Jardine? If not, why not? If it had been, it undoubtedly would have led to increased cost: the £150,000 would not have been sufficient. Indeed, as the Prime Minister has indicated in his letter to me, that sum may not be sufficient now, because he says that it is not necessarily a final figure.
Finally, with all the difficulties, which I fully appreciate—I have endeavoured to keep within the rules of order—we are being asked in the Bill to pay £150,000 for the convenient finding that an Undersecretary was negligent—an Undersecretary who had so conveniently already retired from the Department. We are being asked to pay £150,000 for a report which, in paragraph 343, exonerates everyone in sight except three people. We are being asked to pay £150,000 for a report which recommends that acts of the Government watchdog which by its own admission was feeble in the extreme, cannot be held responsible for the loss suffered by shareholders and policy holders. In short, we are being asked to pay £150,000 for a bucket of whitewash mixed by a Star Chamber Court.

Mr. Thorpe: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can you help us on one matter. Page 725 of the Eighteenth Edition of "Erskine May" states:
The administrative action of a department is open to debate, but the necessity for legislation and matters involving legislation can only be discussed in Supply on a substantive motion.
Will you give the House guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on whether it is in order, as I submit, to ask whether it was as a result of the administrative


action of a Department that the decision was taken that no Ministers should be called? Surely that is a question which it is perfectly in order to ask. If the answer is that it was not an administrative action, in fairness to the Department we are entitled to know upon whose advice that action was taken.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would give me a minute or two to consider the point. Meanwhile, I call Mr. Steel.

12.53 a.m.

Mr. David Steel: I begin on a serious note, and make it clear to the House that my namesake in the proceedings before the tribunal is no relation of mine. Indeed, I believe that he spells his name differently.
The House is in a genuine difficulty over the ruling that you have given, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the tribunal is itself a court. It would appear from the original Act that that cannot be so, because, unlike an ordinary court, this tribunal was set up specifically by Parliament to report to Parliament. It therefore must be presumed that the report laid before the House is open to some form of inquiry and comment by the House thereafter.
If it is argued that that is so, but that it can be done only on a substantive Motion, we on this bench in particular are entitled to express the point of view, as regards a substantive Motion, that we have pressed for a debate, but have not so far been granted one, and that we are entirely in the hands either of the Government to provide time for a debate or, indeed, of the Opposition to provide time for a debate on a Supply Day.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not wish to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but in order that he may be able to refer to this matter if he wishes, because his right hon. and hon. Friends have already spoken and they cannot speak again, I will state that it would be in order to speak about the administrative details which led up to a decision involving some expenditure, but to take it further than that would be out of order.

Mr. Steel: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I think, nonetheless,

that you will accept my point that in order to have a wide debate on the subject without straining your patience and that of the House it is necessary, according to your previous ruling, to have a substantive Motion. I am making the point that, such a Motion having been suggested by hon. Members on this bench, we are in the hands either of the Government or the Opposition to place such a Motion for debate.
The public are aware that we are dealing with a matter concerning the administration of a Department under Ministers or both the present and the previous Government, and if no such debate is forthcoming members of the public will be entitled to exercise their suspicions.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have every sympathy with the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Gentlemen, but it is not really a matter for me. I have to rule upon that question before the House now, and I think that the point which the hon. Gentleman has made has been made very well, not only by him but by his right hon. and hon. Friends. It will have sunk home with the Government and I think that we ought to leave it there.

Mr. Steel: I hope that you will not think that I was criticising the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was merely reiterating the point that we agree that this must, of necessity, be a narrow and unsatisfactory debate from the point of view of the public, and it is the public interest with which we are concerned.
Although the sum of £150,000 has been mentioned frequently by my right hon. and hon. Friends for the purpose of maintaining themselves in order, much more than £150,000 is at stake. I do not know whether, among my constituents, I had any shareholders in V & G, but I did have policy holders among them. I doubt whether any hon. Member here did not have V & G policy holders among his constituents, and a matter which concerns the loss by policy holders of £10 million, and the loss by shareholders of a further £10 million cannot be anything but of the gravest public importance.
We are frustrated on two counts—first, by the lateness of the hour and of the debate, for understandable reasons and, secondly, by the narrow confines of the debate. We are therefore entitled to


put it to the Government that although, in the absence of the Leader of the House, they cannot speak on the question of a wider debate in future, we should like to know whether it is their intention that we should be able to probe this matter further.
Although we can argue tonight on the narrow point whether the public got value for this sum of £150,000, it is the question of the loss of £20 million and the competence of successive Governments in safeguarding the public and the public interest that is really at stake. We are prevented from pursuing that in too great detail, but the public will conclude that £150,000 is in itself a great deal of money to spend on what my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) has rightly described as a bucket of whitewash. We are entitled to expect much more than that for that sum of money.

12.58 a.m.

Mr. Marcus Worsley: The four Members from the Liberal bench have shown great ingenuity, but I do not think that the exercise in which they are involved is worth carrying out. If I do not follow them in what they have said it is not because I am not concerned with this matter. It happens that Mr. Jardine is a constituent of mine. I have therefore been taking up the case, and am very interested in it.
I appreciate that important matters are raised by this case. All that I am saying to the Liberal Members is that they are not helping a bit by bringing the matter up in this way at this time. The Leader of the House has undertaken that there shall be a debate. It is much better that that debate should take place when the Government have had time to consider all the implications of this tribunal and are able to give a considered judgment on it.
When there is a substantive Motion before the House we can consider these important matters fully and properly. It is for that reason and not for any lack of concern about the issues raised that I do not intend to follow the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel), but intend to reserve my position for the wider debate.

1 a.m.

Mr. R. B. Cant: I agree with the hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Worsley). Unfortunately, when I decided to attend this debate, I was unaware of the letter which had been sent to the Liberal Member. Naturally, this makes one extremely inhibited.
But despite these major inhibitions, which are almost fatal to any intelligent discussion of this matter, I want to raise one or two questions on the narrow consideration of value for money—the basis on which, I know as a city councillor for 20 years, we have always conducted our business in local government.
I do not know whether I am unique among hon. Members in having attended meetings of this tribunal, but I certainly did not see any of my colleagues present. It gave the impression of being a tribunal, and not a court of law, and as such it might have had some very serious shortcomings. I began as an arch-enemy of the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, but having heard him defending the reputations of his civil servants I concluded my attendance feeling profoundly sorry for the civil servants involved.
As I wanted to take an intelligent interest in the tribunal I was affronted when the secretary to the tribunal answered my request for a copy of the proceedings by asking me to forward a cheque for £140. That was before our recent salary increases, and I did not have such a cheque. This seems a strange situation for an M.P. to be placed in.
I understand that ex gratia payments were made to people representing either the policy holders or the shareholders. Did the tribunal, the Department or the Treasury lay down conditions for the conduct of these people at the tribunal? More important, if these payments were to allow the interests of the policy holders or shareholders to be properly represented, may we take that as a precedent? If so, some of the imperfections of our law will be remedied to a minor degree. I should like some information about that.
Another aspect raised by the Leader of the Liberal Party was the question whether this sum might have been increased by requiring Ministers to give


evidence. Was this countermanded at any stage in the proceedings leading up to the tribunal itself?
In effect, the tribunal—I am not criticising it in the slightest—found that the Department had no legal liability for the losses sustained by the shareholders and policy holders. No doubt that is correct, and I should not want to disagree. But surely that does not preclude a consideration—this would mightily increase the Supplementary Estimate—of ex gratia payments not to the shareholders, but to the policy holders—the innocents who were massacred on such a grand scale by the incompetence not so much of the Department as of those who conducted the business of the Vehicle & General Insurance Company. This is a matter on which I might ask the Financial Secretary, for an answer, even in the limited confines of what we are discussing tonight. It would have a profound effect upon the future, because I am sure that we shall see more casualties amongst insurance companies of this kind.
I do not know whether I should still be in order, Mr. Deputy Speaker—I have a terribly instinctive feeling that I should not be in order—in saying that in the early stages of this tribunal one had to listen to a great deal of discussion—which must have cost a tremendous amount of money—on the question of the leak and the way in which the poor lady in question was handled—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's suspicions are correct. If he proceeds along those lines he will get out of order.

Mr. Cant: Although this point may reflect on the conduct of the Department I feel that I must make it. We had a situation in which a considerable sum was being spent by the Government, paying lawyers, and so on, in investigating whether there had been a leak. To my mind, that money could be well and truly justified if it were established that there had been a leak, but that it led to a situation in which there would be no further leaks.
The Secretary of State made a statement that on the basis of the experience of this leak there would be no further leaks. Yet, in answer to two Questions which I put down later, he confessed

that on 23rd October—at the very time when statements were being made in the most dogmatic terms that the lesson of experience had been learned—this further leak had taken place. We were told that although the document in the second case had been sent to the chairman of the company who acknowledged that he had received it, he said that he would send it on to his legal adviser, who said that he had lost it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is getting into deep water. He would be wise to leave that argument.

Mr. David Steel: Bearing in mind Mr. Deputy Speaker's earlier ruling, that we might discuss the administrative arrangements which led to the spending of £150,000, may I ask the hon. Gentleman to say, having attended the tribunal, whether he got the impression that it suffered from no Ministers having been called?

Mr. Cant: Yes, in two respects. It suffered, first, in terms of the efficiency of the operation and, secondly—not being a lawyer I must use layman's language—in terms of inequity; people were seriously disadvantaged. Although I agree that the large sum of £150,000 was spent, it would have been justified in terms of justice if these two factors had been met. That was brought home to me as time went on.
Accepting that this is a large sum, we must also accept that we are living in a society in which the problem of negligence on the part of companies in particular and in general is on the increase. The same applies to fraud. In fact, this is our fastest-growing crime. One would therefore not object to the expenditure of even larger sums if this growth could be arrested or diminished.
This whole issue will have to be debated at some stage. From my six years' experience in Parliament I am always suspicious when debates are promised for the future. I appreciate that many serious issues occupy the time of the House, but this is a continuing economic and social problem with which we shall have to grapple, perhaps when some of the other problems have faded from the headlines.
In the meantime, I will tax your patience no longer, Mr. Deputy Speaker.


I suspect that I should soon be called to order if I continued along that path. I suffer from massive frustration, having prepared a magnificent speech which I am unable to deliver. However, even on the narrow issues of the debate we are entitled to some revelations from the Minister.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Before calling the Financial Secretary to reply to the debate, may I say that I am greatly obliged to hon. Members for the admirable way in which they have restrained themselves?

1.15 a.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Patrick Jenkin): Of necessity the debate has been heavily circumscribed. Indeed, I was inclined to agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Mr. Worsley) that it had an aura or artificiality. Hon. Members from the Liberal benches have complained in the politest possible way of the restrictive ness of the ruling which has depended upon the precedents in "Erskine May", and they have complained about the precedents themselves. But what they really ought to complain about is that they have chosen the wrong occasion to raise this matter. If they wanted to raise the matter and make the kind of speech made by the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) in his last couple of sentences, this was not the occasion to do it—[Interruption.] I gather that the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) has not been aware of what has been said.

Mr. David Steel: Yes I have.

Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Member was obviously at one stage inclined to look at his hon. Friend's copy of HANSARD.
But perhaps the restrictive nature of the debate was not altogether unanticipated and, perhaps, my presence at the Dispatch Box is some evidence of its nature, although my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is present. Class III, Vote 12, sub-head e2 is a Treasury responsibility and, as such, I am replying to the debate.
The first and perhaps the most important function which I can perform is to assure the House that there will be a full debate after Easter. My right hon.

Friend the Lord President, during Business questions on 9th March, said absolutely clearly:
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister promised a debate on this matter in Government time, and there will be a debate."—[Official Report, 9th March, 1972; Vol. 832, c. 1670.]
I was astonished by the statements of hon. Gentlemen saying that they had asked for a debate but would not get one. There will be an opportunity to discuss the very important issues of principle and of procedure to which the report and the tribunal give rise.

Mr. Steel: As the hon. Gentleman has said that the debate will take place after Easter, do we take it that that means before Whitsun?

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Perhaps I can come to that point shortly. The reason why we have not been able to have a debate earlier than this was made very clear by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he replied to a Question from my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South-West (Mr. Tom Boardman) on Thursday last, 16th March. My hon. Friend had asked my right hon. Friend when he proposed to make a further announcement about the report of the Vehicle and General tribunal. My right hon. Friend replied:
What I expect to be the last of the comments made by the staff associations and some of the witnesses was received at the end of last week. These comments, which are very extensive, are being studied as urgently as the highly technical nature of the subject matter allows. A further statement will be made in the debate which the Government has undertaken to arrange as soon as is practicable after the Easter Recess."—[Official Report, 16th March, 1972; Vol. 833, c. 185.]
That has been in Hansard since Friday and I hope that hon. Members will accept that as seriously intended and that they will find that their hopes in this regard will be amply fulfilled.
Serious questions have been raised by the staff associations in the Civil Service and by the particular witnesses who gave evidence at the Tribunal. It is very right and proper that D.T.I. Ministers should take ample time not only to hold full discussions with the staff associations but also in considering the representations made to them and the implications to which they give rise.
I realise that it is difficult and, indeed, distressing for those whose conduct has been criticised by the tribunal to have to wait. But it is perhaps more important that Ministers should reach the right decisions and should put the right decisions to the House in the debate. There will be a debate as soon as practicable after Easter.
The second point which the debate enables me to deal with is to answer the questions asked by hon. Members which fall within the rules of order and the main one is the question of costs. The hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe), raised this at the beginning when my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced the results of the tribunal's inquiry on 16th February. My right hon. Friend wrote very soon after to the hon. Member and gave the figure, as he put it, "of the order of £150,000". I shall be in a position to be more specific as we are now a fortnight further on. Some of the costs are not yet finalised and some are not ascertained and even the figures I shall be giving are of the nature of estimates. Some are certain. The Treasury Solicitor incurred and either has paid or will pay counsel's fees amounting to £33,000. There are the fees of the two tribunal members, other than Mr. Justice James, which came to £7,000. There was the cost of the shorthand writers and the transcripts—hon. Members may think a high figure in the circumstances—£5,500. But the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Cant) who was asked £140 for a complete transcript, perhaps gave the best answer for this. This hearing lasted 56 days and it was essential that the work should be of a very high order and very swiftly produced. That was the cost.
There was also the small sum of £2,000 witnesses's expenses and loss of earnings though there is additional expenditure not included in this estimate because it falls on the Departments concerned. There was some £23,000 for the Department of Trade and Industry's counsel, a figure estimated at about £18,000 for accommodation and other similar services which falls on the Department of the Environment vote, and there is about £16,000 for certain other common services most of it to the Stationery Office, which will include the cost of printing and publishing the report.
There is one other major matter. The figures that I have given come to about £104,000, but there is an estimated figure in the Vote which we have put in provisionally at £40,000 to cover ex gratia payments in respect of third party representation costs. The position on these ex parte representation costs is a matter with lies wholly within the discretion of the tribunal. The payments are ex gratia. I know of no case where a tribunal has recommended that payments are made where there has been any challenge by the Treasury or any other Department. The tribunal has not yet met to consider the question of ex gratia payment costs, but it will do so in due course. I can answer the question about what payments have been made. The answer is that none have yet been made and none have yet been authorised because the tribunal has not yet expressed its view on them.
The rule about these various expenses is that the costs lie where they fall. Where there are costs—there have been the salaries of civil servants, and so on—they are covered by the vote of the appropriate Department. The salary of the judge fall on the Consolidated Fund and the cost of the accommodation falls on the appropriate Vote. All the others, which come to something under £100,000 come on the Law Charges Vote, which is the Vote on the particular Supplementary Estimate that we are considering, Class III, Vote 12, sub-head e.
I was asked whether we received value for money. That is an almost impossible question to answer. The costs of this tribunal were high but it is certainly not the highest since the war. It has not been possible to obtain detailed figures of the Lynskey Tribunal. The Bank Rate Tribunal in 1957 was extremely inexpensive, costing only about £5,000, though it was perhaps rather more expensive in reputations. The Aberfan Tribunal, in 1966, cost £140,000. That is not very different from the tribunal that we are considering. It sat for 56 days of public hearings, considered a vast mass of documentation, and heard expert witnesses. There were not fewer than 10 teams of counsel to represent many of the interested parties. One is entitled to submit that the costs are certainly justified by the importance of the issues raised. What I cannot discuss tonight


is those issues. That comes on another occasion.
The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) asked about the representation of the individual civil servants whose conduct was impugned during the tribunal—Mr. Jardine, Mr. Homewood, and Mr. Steel. My information is that they were advised strongly by the Department not to seek individual representation but to allow their case to be handled by the Department's own team of lawyers. Some accepted that advice readily, some rather more reluctantly, but they did accept it.
The hon. and learned Gentleman asked about Mr. Burr. I think he meant Mr. Hunt, because Mr. Burr was represented. Mr. Hunt was not. The matter is referred to in the latter part of paragraph 10:
On this occasion the Government has invited us to advise as to the costs of persons represented and we shall tender advice as to the cases in which justice requires that an ex gratia payment in respect of costs should be made from public funds, and as to what proportion of the reasonable costs incurred the contribution should in each case represent. Mr. Hunt was informed that this was our intention and offered legal representation on that basis but he declined to avail himself of the opportunity.
The hon. and learned Gentleman asked whether payments are now automatic. I cannot say categorically that that is so, but I know of no case where a payment has been recommended by a tribunal and refused by some other Department.
The right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) asked a number of questions, some of which are not for me but for the Chair. He wondered whether we felt that the taxpayer had had value for money. It is perhaps too soon to answer. As the hon. Member for Cornwall, North said, the Government have not yet indicated whether they have accepted the report. I spent a happy weekend reading it, rather unexpectedly. It is a complex report, and it raises major issues. We are not in a position to judge its value until the House has had an opportunity to debate it and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has conveyed to the House the Government's view of it.
The right hon. Gentleman asked why the tribunal did not confront the civil

servants with the charge. That is not for me to answer. No doubt it will be raised in the debate after Easter.
In an intervention which I took to be seriously intended, the right hon. Gentlemans also asked whether enough money had been spent on the inquiry. I take the point. He was, I think, referring to the fact that the civil servants might have been separately represented and that therefore the figure of £40,000 for ex gratia payments might have been bigger. But I think I have commented sufficiently on that.
It was clearly and categorically the Tribunal's own decision that no Ministers were called. There is no one else whose decision it could conceivably have been.

Mr. Pardoe: Would the hon. Gentleman confirm or deny whether he knows that an announcement emanating from the Attorney-General to the effect that the Prime Minister would not be called appeared in more than one newspaper three days before the tribunal ever sat?

Mr. Jenkin: We at this Dispatch Box have made it clear that we have no responsibility for what appears in newspapers. The hon. Gentleman must make his own inquiries.

Mr. Thorpe: The hon. Gentleman has made a statement which I may not have understood aright but which it is important to have on the record correctly. Is he suggesting that which witnesses would or would not be called was entirely a matter within the discretion of the tribunal? There was no suggestion that it was so advised, even on evidence supplied by counsel. If so, it would be an unusual procedure.

Mr. Jenkin: I could not begin to express a view one way or another as to what advice the tribunal may have had or from what sources. It had its own solicitors and also the advice of a strong team from the Treasury Solicitors' Department. Any final decision on this matter must have rested with the tribunal and could not have been taken by anyone else.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central, raised the question whether the estimate could not have been bigger—I think he said, very much bigger—if it had made provision for meeting the liability to policy holders. I noticed that he


expressly excluded the shareholders. This was dealt with in a few words by the tribunal itself, in paragraph 350. It said:
The exercise by the Department of its powers would have resulted in the exposure of the defects of the Company referred to in this Report … the Department cannot be held liable for the loss attributable to these defects.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 16th February, after referring to that passage, said:
That is the finding of the tribunal, and it is a very clear conclusion."—[Official Report, 16th February, 1972; Vol. 831, c. 428.]

Mr. Cant: Surely there is the distinction, which I think we shall hear a great deal more about in the more general debate we shall have, between acceptance of liability on behalf of the Department and a willingness in circumstances of this kind to make ex gratia payments.

Mr. Jenkin: If we do hear a great deal more about it that will be the occasion on which to hear a great deal more about it. I would not wish to go further than that tonight. The hon. Gentleman also raised the matter of the later so-called "leak", which was adequately explained within a few days, if not hours, in that a junior secretary had put a document into the wrong envelope which did not relate to the insurance company at all.

Mr. Cant: The hon. Gentleman may, of course, not recall that although the Secretary of State said that the legal adviser had stated that he had not received them, someone told him that the legal adviser had this leak document in his possession. When I asked the Secretary of State whether he had taken steps to recover it, he said, "Yes, he did."

Mr. Jenkin: I am not sure to which case the hon. Gentleman is referring. Perhaps, as I am not wholly briefed on the matter that he raised in the debate, we can leave it there.
The real lesson of the debate is that these are important issues which raise very important implications for the relationships of civil servants with their Departments and the public and the relationship of Departments as a whole with the public in operating the legislation which this House accords to them to assist them in carrying out their functions. But these are matters which do

not fall to be considered on the Second Reading of a Consolidated Fund Bill. I will not go so far as to say that the debate has been a waste of time; that would be a discourtesy and also untrue, for it has enabled me to make clear what the costs were and how much of them appear on the Vote. But having listened to no less than two-thirds of the Parliamentary Liberal Party trying to keep itself in order on a matter of major importance on an occasion for which it was clearly wholly inappropriate, I do not think that it is going too far to say that perhaps the time of Parliament might have been better spent.

HOSPITAL SERVICES (LEICESTERSHIRE AND EAST MIDLANDS)

1.35 a.m.

Mr. John Farr: I make no excuse for once again calling the attention of the House to the abysmally poor service for hospital patients in Leicestershire and Rutland. I have initiated four or five debates on this topic in recent years and the fact that it is necessary to air fresh complaints about this service is distressing. I hope that tonight I shall get a more forthright and hopeful answer than I have had from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security or previous Ministers who have occupied his illustrious position.
In Leicestershire complaints about the hospital service can be channelled into three outlets, all of which I have raised in debates or Questions. The first is related to the service provided by casualty departments at some of the hospitals, particularly at the Leicester Royal Infirmary. It should not be necessary for me to provide for the Minister the example of a recent meeting of Blaby Rural District Council in my constituency. During a discussion about complaints of waiting time and treatment at Leicester Royal Infirmary casualty department, Councillor Mrs. Hall said that she had waited eight and a half hours. She complained not so much for herself as for children who waited for hours without attention. Another councillor said she waited from very early in the morning until late afternoon for treatment. She too was concerned about the number of children who had to wait and the effect that delay had on them.
The second point in my three-pronged argument is in relation to waiting time for consultations in the district. My hon. Friend will be aware that in Leicester one has to wait an average of three or four months for a National Health Service consultation. When I brought this matter before him in December, 1971, I gave my hon. Friend examples of the very long wait that some of my constituents and others had for such consultations. In some cases it was necessary to obtain a private consultation rather than suffer the anguish and uncertainty of waiting for a National Health Service consultation.
The third point is in relation to waiting for a National Health Service operation. When I last raised this point with my hon. Friend's Department in debate a year or two ago it was appalling. Since then, despite what I know to be his good intentions and his sincere concern about the situation, things have not improved. Just over a year ago I gave my hon. Friend examples of people who waited three and four years for a National Health Service operation. One or two had to go privately. Since I last raised the matter in debate I had the example of a lady whom I shall call Mrs. P., who waited for three years and found the long wait so distressing that she felt constrained to raise the money to have the operation privately.
Other examples have come to light and I can quote to my hon. Friend a report from the local newspaper dealing with conditions in Leicestershire, relating to a lady whom I shall call Mrs. K. She first saw her doctor on 12th September last year after haemorrhaging at work. The report says:
Leicester Royal Infirmary could not give her an appointment until January 13"—
That was for a consultation—
so Mrs. K. paid £5 for a private appointment which was made for October. In her own words, Mrs. K … felt so 'bitter and twisted' about the fact that the only way she could obtain an appointment with a specialist being on the payment of a fee that she decided to see her Member of Parliament.
It was when she saw the specialist that Mrs. K … was told: 'If I could pay I could get into Fielding Johnson within a fortnight or St. Francis by December'.
'I would not give an answer there and then because there was a fear that my husband, an engineer, might be out of work as a

result of a strike and we also had the possibility of £300 road-making bill over us.'".
Eventually her family doctor advised her against the operation saying she had paid enough through her full national insurance stamp and he believed that it would cost more than the £150–£170 quoted. In October of last year she went on the waiting list and was told by the specialist that she would have to wait up to four years for a National Health Service operation.
Those are a few examples I have of constituents who have already waited a long time for a Health Service operation. It is apparent to me, and has been for some time, that in a district such as Leicester and Rutland there is something wrong with our hospital services. As long ago as March, 1966, one of my hon. Friend's predecessors, the then Parliamentary Secretary, said in answer to my complaint that he was determined to introduce improvements as rapidly as the country's resources permitted.
The former Parliamentary Secretary went on to say, dealing with the Leicester situation:
I want, if I may, very quickly to deal with the Leicester situation in particular, but I want to make it absolutely clear that it is for the board to assess priorities for development of the service within its region or between one locality and another.
He said a few more words and concluded that paragraph by saying:
Nevertheless, there has already been development at Leicester, and about 11 per cent. of the board's investment in the first 17 years of the Health Service has been spent in the area."—[Official Report. 7th March, 1966; Vol. 725, c. 1871.]
That may sound a lot but we have to take into account that nearly 20 per cent. of the Sheffield Regional Hospital Board population live in the Leicestershire area. Area No. 21.
The concern of the medical practitioners can be illustrated by an extract from a letter from Dr. Whowell, the Leicestershire and Rutland Local Medical Committee Honorary Secretary, who wrote to the Leicestershire No. 1 Hospital Management Committee in December, saying:
At the meeting of the Local Medical Committee held last Wednesday, the hardy annual of hospital waiting lists came up—particularly those for out-patients. While it was realised that the present situation was not the direct fault of the Hospital Management Committee,


I was instructed to write to you to put forward a suggestion—that the attention of the general public should be drawn to the fact that dissatisfaction with the local services in this respect is beyond the control of the Hospital Management Committee and that it stems from an intrinsic lack of capital to expand the out patient department and also to increase the number of consultants.
From answers given by my hon. Friend to recent Questions on this issue, it seems that lack of capital is the basis of all our complaints.
I have had many soothing replies from my hon. Friend about hospital services in my county. Seven or eight years ago I was told by one of his predecessors that everything would be all right soon, we only had to wait for present plans to mature. The nub of my criticism lies in the woefully inadequate proportion of money available to the Sheffield Regional Hospital Board for expenditure on medical services in Leicestershire and Rutland.
Only six days ago my hon. Friend gave an answer which I find most illuminating and which reveals the true basis of my complaint. I asked:
what was the average annual expenditure on hospital services in Leicestershire per head of population in the last three years; and what was the comparable figure nationally".
My hon. Friend replied:
Hospital service current expenditure per head of population in Leicestershire and Rutland in 1968–69 was £9·6; in 1969–70 it was £10·2 and in 1970–71 £12·2. The corresponding figures nationally are £12·9, £14·0 and £16·5".—[Official Report, 14th March, 1972; Vol. 833, c. 49.]
In every case those national figures are 25 per cent. more than the amount expended in Leicestershire and Rutland.
In this situation, which has occurred year after year, with 25 per cent. below the average national per capita expenditure on hospital services and a per capitaexpenditure well below that of the neighbouring counties, the medical services of Leicestershire and Rutland are bound to deteriorate and suffer markedly. This below-average expenditure is the prime cause of the deplorable services which still exist.
I suggest, first, that no longer should Leicestershire and Rutland be starved of a proper share of moneys available for hospital services. It is no wonder that this part of the country has a reputation

for woefully inadequate service in many spheres when less money is consistently spent on it. I look to my hon. Friend, instead of promising me that in a few years' time things shall be better, to see at least that a fair and equitable amount in proportion to the national expenditure per head is expended on National Health Services in the district.
Secondly, I ask whether my hon. Friend is satisfied with the present structure of the Sheffield Regional Hospital Board within which area Leicestershire and Rutland fall. It is a strange anomaly, and has been to me a source of wonder, that Leicestershire and Rutland should fall under the control of a regional hospital authority centred 60 or 70 miles to the north in south Yorkshire. I have no doubt my hon. Friend will be able to explain this anomaly to the House if only by saying that this has always been the case and there is no reason why it should be changed.
I suggest two alternatives which would far better meet the needs of those in Leicestershire. First, I suggest a possibility which my hon. Friend may not yet have considered, namely, that there should be a new regional health area based on the new medical school in Leicester. This new regional health area would serve Leicestershire, Rutland and Northamptonshire and would have a population of about 1¼ million people. The main advantage of such a proposal is that it would mean that the new Leicester teaching hospital would be the centre of its own region in accordance with the pattern outside the metropolitan area. It may be thought that 1¼ million is on the small side for a regional hospital area and that this would mean divorcing Northampton from the Oxford region, but this is a suggestion I put to my hon. Friend.
The second alternative lies in an amended regional hospital area but this time, instead of being confined simply to Leicestershire, Rutland and Northamptonshire, based on Nottingham and including Lincolnshire, Derbyshire, Leicestershire and Rutland. In other words, it would mean detaching from that area this portion of the Sheffield Regional Hospital Board's area and establishing a separate authority for it to form a regional base on Nottingham. Nottingham is, of course, far closer to Leicester than is Sheffield, and it is not so remote. The


difficulties of access and telecommunication between Leicester and Nottingham would not be nearly as great as between Leicester and Sheffield, which is 50 or 60 miles further on into south Yorkshire.
I do not want more money to be spent on Leicestershire and Rutland, but I want to see an adequate and fair proportion of moneys available for health services to be spent on my constituents and those of my hon. Friends in Leicestershire and Rutland.
I should also like serious consideration to be given to whether the future of Leicestershire and Rutland still lies with the Sheffield Regional Hospital Board. I believe that the siting in respect of Leicestershire and Rutland is outdated and I believe that one or other of the two suggestions I have made would be preferable to my constituents.
Before I conclude, I wish to draw to my hon. Friend's attention my fears in connection with the geriatric hospital bed provision in Leicestershire and Rutland in a couple of years' time. As my hon. Friend will be aware from the correspondence which has passed between us, for which I am grateful, Hillcrest Hospital in Leicester is due to be closed in 1974. It is calculated on the best advice available that this will lead to a serious deficiency of geriatric hospital beds in 1974.
If one takes the basis that the Ministry uses, that 1 per cent. of the population aged over 65 is or will be in need of a geriatric hospital bed in this area—Area No. 21—one can calculate that the need will be for 1,023 such beds. The latest assessment, arrived at very recently, is that there will be only 735 such beds by 1st April, 1974. That will leave a deficit of 288 which, if it comes about, will be a severe additional burden on local community services. I ask my hon. Friend to bear in mind this warning in order to ensure that the district is not crippled with a large burden by being short of 200 or 300 severely needed geriatric hospital beds.
In conclusion, I repeat a view that I expressed to my hon. Friend in the House some time ago. It is one that I still hold. I want to see a first-class National Health Service, as I am sure my hon. Friend does. I know that both he and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State are

endeavouring to provide a first-class service. It distresses me to know that my constituents are saying that we have not got that in Leicester. We have doctors telling people that the only way they will get much-needed operations within three or four years is by going privately. We have a hospital service which does not live up to the ideals and standards that we need.

1.57 a.m.

Mr. Tom Boardman: I am happy that my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) has given me this opportunity to confirm his fears and concerns about the hospital service in Leicester and Leicestershire. I speak for the city itself, whereas my hon. Friend has spoken for the county. The hospitals to which he referred, however, serve the constituents of both of us, although the Leicester Royal Infirmary is in my constituency.
I know that my hon. Friend the Undersecretary will be able to refer to the progress which will be achieved at the Leicester Royal Infirmary. We welcome its designation as a teaching hospital. We know that we can look forward to great improvements towards the end of this decade.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, however, I am gravely concerned about conditions as they are today. My hon. Friend's analysis of the problem and his suggestion that the Sheffield Hospital Board may be too remote is one which, though I have not discussed it with him, strikes me as having a sound ring of truth to it.
One of the problems about the hospital service as a whole which applies particularly in Leicester is that since 1948, when local responsibility was passed over to regional boards, those hospitals which were well advanced and progressive have been held back so that the others might catch up. In 1948, for example, I understand that the Leicester Royal Infirmary was extremely progressive and well ahead of other hospitals which are now in the Sheffield Board's region. Since then, the board has tended to mark time with expenditure on hospitals which were well ahead and has concentrated on enabling the others to catch up. It is a deplorable state of affairs that hospitals in the Leicester area are having spent on them 25 per cent. less than the national average


and 25 per cent. less than hospitals in Nottingham. As my hon. Friend said, one-third more is being spent on other hospitals than on those in the City of Leicester.
The casualty service is causing immense delay and concern to all local residents and to those who go there and see the conditions. I know some of the problems. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has been forthcoming in his replies and has given all the help he can. One of the problems has been severe shortage of staff. People who sit for a long time in the casualty waiting room wondering why nothing is being done may be unaware that there has been a serious road accident resulting in two or three casualties demanding all the medical and nursing attention available.
I pay tribute to the medical and nursing staff, who do an absolutely magnificent job. However, it is intolerable that people, young and old alike, should have to sit for hours, perhaps for the best part of a day, in the waiting room of the casualty department.
Then there is delay in dealing with non-urgent operations. A reply I have received from my hon. Friend the Undersecretary today indicates that on 16th March there were 5,098 on the waiting list for non-urgent surgical operations. The largest figure—3,254—was waiting for ear, nose and throat operations. There were 500 waiting for general surgery and 738 waiting for gynaecological operations. I accept that, as these are non-urgent cases, to that extent no medical harm will result to these people from having to wait, but a great amount of anxiety is caused to them and their families through having to wait for years.

Mr. Farr: My hon. Friend will be interested to know that the figure he has given of the number on the waiting list for non-urgent surgical operations is almost exactly the same as the total figure of those on the waiting list in 1966.

Mr. Boardman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for underlining the point that the position has not improved. One elderly constituent of mine has been waiting for over two and a half years for a hysterectomy. In answer to her frequent inquiries she has been told that she probably will not be called for

another two or three years. Such delays are intolerable. A woman with a thyroid which brought up the side of her neck to twice its normal size has been waiting for seven years. There has been an assurance that her health will not suffer, but she suffers grave inconvenience, embarrassment and discomfort. General practitioners constantly raise cases with me as matters causing anxiety to themselves and to their patients.
I believe that the national standard is 10 geriatric beds per 1,000 elderly people. My hon. Friend has reminded the House that in Leicester the figure is under 0·8 per cent., so it is substantially below the national average. It may be said that extra beds would be provided at the City General Hospital, extra beds which would make up for those beds which would be lost when Hillcrest is closed. I understand, and no doubt my hon. Friend will be able to comment on this, that a large number of the additional beds being provided at the City General Hospital are having to be allocated for surgical cases, and one can understand why. Many of them are being allocated to the ear, nose and throat department. Again one can understand that, with 3,000 waiting, but it means that instead of there being more geriatric beds by the end of 1974, there will be fewer. The figure will be even lower than it is today.
The position is getting worse. General practitioners in the city are faced with an almost unbearable task. Many of of them tell me of cases in which they do not know what to do. If a patient living on his own is taken desperately ill during the night, a doctor tries to get him a geriatric bed. One doctor told me that he spent two hours on the telephone trying to get a patient into hospital. These old people cannot live at home where there are no facilities for nursing them and where there is no other member of the family or a neighbour to look after them, even if that was sufficient. Doctors find themselves in a desperate position in their attempts to get these old people into hospital, and I ask my hon. Friend to look at this problem again to see what can be done as an urgent measure.
There is a real fear that patients who require geriatric beds will have to overflow into the welfare beds provided by


the social services. That would be a double tragedy because it would mean, first, that beds required for non-sick old people would be used in the wrong way, and that would put an added strain on the staff. Social services beds are provided by the local authorities from the rates, while geriatric beds are a direct responsibility of the Minister.
I recognise the problem, and I know that my hon. Friend is much concerned about the matter. He has visited Leicester and he knows the conditions there. I appreciate what he has done and what he is doing, but I urge him to look at the matter again, because for casualties, for geriatric cases and for non-urgent surgical cases there is a desperate need for something to be done, not at the end of this decade, but now, and I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to give us some assurance about that.

2.8 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Michael Alison): I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) paid a modest testimony to my interest, concern and admiration for the City of Leicester and. more broadly, for the County of Leicestershire, visiting both of which has given me great pleasure and a good deal of stimulus, intelligence and improvement in my knowledge.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): Order. I think the Minister will recall that he needs the leave of the House to speak again in this debate.

Mr. Alison: I beg your pardon, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Perhaps I may have leave of the House to speak again. It is no doubt reluctantly granted at this late hour.
I have no hesitation, nevertheless, against the background of a personal concern, knowledge and affection for Leicester and the county in repeating what I was forced to confirm to my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough on 14th December, 1971, when we last talked about this subject, that we accept unequivocally that the Sheffield region is under-resourced and that the hospital service in some parts of the region, including Leicester and other areas in the East Midlands, are under pressure. Much remains to be done in the way of new

provision and increased resources in order to enable the region to cope with the growing demand made on its hospital services.
It is true that at least to some extent, but not exclusively, the pressure on hospital services can be measured by the length of waiting lists for admission to hospital. We are certainly not complacent about the waiting list situation in Leicester or, for that matter, in other parts of the Sheffield region falling within the East Midlands conurbation. My hon. Friends have given stark and sombre illustrations of this, certainly in some specialities.
In the more critical specialties in this context, such as general surgery, trauma and orthopaedics surgery and gynaecology, the position is far from uniform. In general surgery, for example, the position at Leicester is better than both the regional and national average situation. In the other two specialties I have mentioned the reverse is the case and in comparing waiting lists with discharges and deaths the position is worse than both the regional and national situation.
Compared with population the position appears to be better in Leicester than both the regional and national situation, although one cannot completely discount the possibility that general practitioners are discouraged from referring patients to hospital because of long waiting lists. By far the largest proportion of the waiting list in Leicester is for admission to the ear, nose and throat department; this is partly due to the effects of staff absence some time ago because of illness, and the lost ground has still to be recovered. I agree that the waiting times for non-urgent cases are above average in some specialities but this position will improve as new facilities now being developed and planned are brought into operation.
So far as waiting times for consultations are concerned, patients with urgent conditions are always seen without delay and non-urgent cases can always have their appointments brought forward if their general practitioner considers that their condition has worsened during their wait for an appointment. The most protracted waiting times for non-urgent cases are in the specialties of general surgery, ophthalmic surgery and orthopaedic surgery.
At Leicester Royal Infirmary the waiting time could be 12 weeks or more. At Leicester General Hospital the waiting time for an appointment in general surgery could be up to 17 weeks. However, the position in other specialties is better and has improved in recent months. For example, the waiting time is now three weeks in E.N.T. and neurology, six weeks in urology and two weeks or less in nearly all other specialties.
As I have already said, we are not complacent about the waiting list situation in Leicester or, for that matter, about the situation nationally. A special study on the personal initiative of my right hon. Friend is in progress to determine how best to secure an improvement. Lengthy waiting lists are an indication of the need to increase hospital provision in Leicester and it must be increased both to cater for service needs and to meet the requirements of the new medical school which it has been decided to open in Leicester.
There is also a need to increase the levels of medical starring in Leicester which the Sheffield Regional Hospital Board acknowledges to be lower than average but progress cannot be as fast as we could wish until the new developments under way in Leicester provide the additional facilities which the doctors need.
In the Sheffield Region as a whole the numbers of medical staff are increasing; as I said in reply to a Question by the hon. Member for Dearne Valley (Mr. Edwin Wainwright) on 29th February, the provisional figures for 30th September, 1971, show an increase of 5 per cent. compared with a year earlier. But there is still a very long way to go before the region catches up with the levels of staffing prevailing over the country as a whole. The developments in hospital building which I am about to describe, and the development of the new teaching hospital in Leicester, will all stimulate growth in medical staffing.
The problems of maldistribution of hospital staff will be urgently studied by the new Central Manpower Committee (Medical and Dental) which has been set up to advise the Secretary of State and which held its first meeting earlier this month. I hope that it will be able to make recommendations which will help the understaffed regions.
The deficiencies in the hospital services in Leicester, which must be rectified to achieve a permanent solution to the problem of waiting times, can be rectified only by capital development. My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough pinpointed this aspect. This is being planned by the Sheffield Regional Hospital Board at the present time.
In the Sheffield Region the demand for hospital services has increased in common with the rest of the country, but due to an inherited shortage of beds and resources it has been difficult up till now to make good the backlog while at the same time meeting increased needs. Although I can understand my hon. Friends' concern for Leicestershire, its situation, recognisably below desirable levels, has nevertheless been better than the situation in other parts of the region. It is a question of priorities, and the regional hospital board has undoubtedly had to face a difficult task.
In its development planning for the area the Sheffield Board is aiming to concentrate its district general hospital services in Leicester, which is the natural centre for the area. The service needs will be met initially by the Leicester Royal Infirmary, which is being developed as the major teaching hospital, and the Leicester General Hospital, Plans are being considered for a further district general hospital also to be located in Leicester.
It should not be thought that there have been no developments in Leicester. To date nearly £6 million has been spent in capital developments, including new X-ray and maternity departments, extension of the pathology departments, a group pharmacy and a new maternity unit at the Leicester Royal Infirmary and a new operating suite, new out patient department and new pathology department at the Leicester General Hospital. Work is in progress amounting to £1·3 million to provide 240 geriatric beds and other improved facilities at the Leicester General Hospital. Work is programmed to start in 1973–74 on Phase II of the redevelopment of Leicester Royal Infirmary, at an estimated cost of £6·6 million, to include 431 beds, 12 operating threatres, four diagnostic X-ray rooms, a new out-patient department and an accident and emergency centre.
On this point I should like to refer to the severe criticisms which my hon. Friends have made about the accident and emergency departments. There is one department serving Leicester and Leicestershire, and it is the largest in the country with 80,000 patients per year. The present department is too small. I admit this unequivocally. There have also been staffing difficulties. Both my hon. Friends know something of the real difficulties which we face nationally in persuading doctors to work in accident and emergency departments. The regional hospital board is looking for ways of reorganising this department in the interim until the new department is opened in Phase II. Meanwhile, I share my hon. Friends' real dismay when long delays occur. A later phase of the Royal Infimary is planned at an estimated cost of £9 million.
Although the establishment of the new medical school in Leicester has presented the board with major problems in planning the disposition of its resources, it will help to augment the hospital services earlier than would otherwise have been the case. For example, the board is planning interim improvements at the Leicester General Hospital amounting to £2 million, including an extension to the out-patient department, for use by teaching staff expected to be appointed by 1973–74. These major capital developments are, I emphasise, under way and compare not unfavourably with the scale of capital development in other parts of the country.
As to the provision of finance, we recognise that the Sheffield Region as a whole has a below-average share of the total moneys available for recurrent expenditure on hospital services. This is being rectified progressively over a period of 10 years, and while it may seem to be a long time before Sheffield achieves parity there are nevertheless compelling reasons why this cannot be done more quickly.
When the National Health Service was set up, regional boards inherited wide disparities in resources both financial and physical, and standards of service varied appreciably between regions. Since 1948 it has been the aim to reduce these disparities and this has met with a fair measure of success; but progress has been slow and somewhat uncertain. For

a long time the annual development addition in real terms to hospital revenue expenditure was too small to allow the gap between the deprived and favoured regions to be closed except at a very slow pace.
Rightly or wrongly, we rejected the alternative of building up the deprived regions at the expense of cutting back services in the more favoured regions and recognised the need of all regions to develop services to allow for population increases and the use of modern medical practice and techniques.
In recent years the annual development addition to hospital revenue expenditure has in real terms been considerably increased. In 1970 my Department therefore decided, after consultations with regional hospital boards, to allocate revenue by means of a formula which over the 10 years from 1971–72 would progressively achieve a more equitable distribution of revenue between regions and lead to a better balance in the levels of service provided throughout the country. My hon. Friends will share with me pleasure that it has been under the present Government that it has been possible to launch a 10-year plan with the object of diminishing and gradually eliminating disparities which have been such a blemish in regional comparisons.
I will not go into the details of the formula, which was first used to make hospital revenue allocations to regional hospital boards for 1971–72. The effect of the formula is to increase progressively and considerably the additional development revenue allocated to the deprived regions while the rate of increase in the revenue allocations to the more favoured regions is held back.
I stress that it is the additional revenue that is adjusted, not the basic revenue required to run existing services. By about 1980 it is expected that an equitable distribution of revenue will have been achieved between all regions. Among the principal beneficiaries will be the Sheffield Region.
The basis for distributing capital is also being reviewed. At the last definitive distribution in 1968 the basis was primarily population both present and forecast to 1981, with an allowance made for the fact that those over the age of 65 make substantially more use of hospital services. Some account was taken


in a subjective basis of the services in each region. We are now considering whether account could be taken of the relative needs of regions for capital on a more objective basis, while not placing an undue burden on regional hospital boards in assessing these needs.
Hospital expenditure per head of population in the Leicestershire area is lower than that for the Sheffield Region as a whole. In 1970–71 it was £12·2 compared with £13·9. The corresponding national figure was £16·5. Nevertheless, as the allocation per head in the Sheffield Region progressively increases relative to that of all regions, so does expenditure in Leicestershire. For example, expenditure per head of population in Leicestershire in 1970–71 increased by 19·6 per cent. over that in 1969–70, compared with an increase nationally of 17·9 per cent.
However, revenue support in itself can only help to the point where shortage of hospital facilities needs to be remedied by capital development and, as I have explained, massive capital developments have already been planned for Leicester. As these developments mature, recurring expenditure will rise rapidly in the area to meet the cost of additional medical, nursing, professional and ancillary staff as well as the additional services and facilities that will become available. The huge capital input in Leicester will in turn generate very much higher levels of recurring expenditure and will thereby reduce the disparities which we so much regret.
As my hon. Friends know, it has been decided not to divide the existing Sheffield Region, with the exception of South Humberside. This decision took into account the views of all interested bodies made known both at a meeting specially convened for this purpose in Nottingham and by correspondence following the publication of the consultative document on the reorganisation of the Health Service. I had the privilege and pleasure of chairing the half-day conference which took place in Nottingham for which all interested parties gathered together precisely to exchange views on the subject of how the region should be considered in the future, whether it should be split into two, whether it should be split, and so on. Against that background my right hon. Friend decided that it was quite right, given full consideration of all the

alternative options, not to divide the Sheffield Region.
My hon. Friends will also both be aware that under the reorganisation Leicestershire will become an area health authority in its own right and will be largely responsible for developing services within its own area. The needs of Leicestershire will continue to receive the special attention which they deserve.
Both my hon. Friends referred to the anomaly of the headquarters of the region being located, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough put it, 60 miles north up the motorway. The question of where the future headquarters of the new regional health authority will be is by no means determined by reference to the fact that we have decided to leave the existing region undivided. It does not necessarily follow that the future headquarters will be in Sheffield—but I must not stray further into prophesies or forecasts—from the fact that we are leaving the Sheffield Region, as it now stands, virtually intact.
Under the existing organisation the needs of Leicestershire have not gone unheeded by the regional hospital board or by my Department, although in the face of the competing demands on the resources available it has not been possible to remedy long-standing deficiencies as soon as we would have wished. Nevertheless, much progress has been made, is being made and is in prospect. The situation will not be wholly redressed until the major development schemes now in progress have matured.
I expect that there will be a number of subsequent debates in which the point is rubbed home. I am happy to be able to point to solid plans that committed allocation of current and revenue funds will help with the removal of disparities.

Mr. Tom Boardman: Is it true that there are plans for fewer geriatric beds by the end of 1974 than there are today? That is a matter of very considerable importance.

Mr. Alison: I think that I have notice of a Question from my hon. Friend on this matter. It may not be in order for me to anticipate in detail the full and somewhat lengthy reply which my hon. Friend will presently be getting but, taking it out of context, I can confirm that the board envisages that on 31st


March, 1973, geriatric beds per thousand of the elderly population will be 9·2 as opposed to 9·4 on 1st January, 1972. The differences in numbers per thousand at this level are marginal. But I can reassure my hon. Friend by saying that the extra geriatric beds in view under existing committed plans will rise to up to 10 per thousand of the elderly upon completion of this phase of our development by 1976, which will bring it up to the national average. It may be better for my hon. Friend to await the definitive answer. Perhaps he could then correspond with me about further questions.

HEALTH EDUCATION COUNCIL

2.30 a.m.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: This is the first time the House has debated the work of the Health Education Council since its inception in January, 1968. Why I cannot say, because the Council, whose task is to promote research into the science and art of healthy living and the principals of hygiene, clearly has objectives of nationwide importance for which its annual budgets of £455,000 for England for 1971–72 and for Wales of £7,000 do not seem excessively large.
Bearing in mind that the Milk Marketing Board spends £1 million a year and the National Coal Board £2 million a year on publicity, we may consider that £500,000 spent on health education for England and Wales and Northern Ireland is fairly paltry, in particular because of the importance of the task which faces the Council. Be that as it may, the Council's present budget is very close to the half million pounds which Lord Cohen suggested in 1964 when he produced his report on health education from which the Council is derived.
Either he and his committee were particularly accurate in their assessment of the likely cost of the Council or the Council has in turn assumed that Lord Cohen's figures would be acceptable as its target and it has therefore moved towards that target. However, because of the Supplementary Estimates which we are debating, the Health Education Council's budget for 1971–72 will be £586,000, and it seems reasonable therefore to question how this

money is being spent and, in particular, to ask whether the Council is fulfilling the task set for it by Mr. Kenneth Robinson when, as Minister of Health in 1968, he launched it and it took over the responsibilities of the Central Council for Health Education. In a Press release issued at the time the Council's aims were stated as being to plan and promote national programmes of health education to assist in the development of local programmes in co-operation with local authorities, professional organisations, voluntary bodies, industry and commercial firms. It was also to undertake research into health education techniques, evaluate results and foster training of staff to engage in health education.
These are worthy aims, and it set out on an enterprising programme. It has certainly, in that programme, fulfilled the aims and aspirations of Lord Cohen and his Committee which were to give health education a new and more professional look. Under the distinguished chairmanship of first Lady Serota and now Lady Birk and with a body made up of medical men, advertising experts, educationists, dentists and local government experts, the Council seems to have the right mix to perform its work effectively.
Certainly it is much better equipped than was its predecessor the Central Council for Health Education to fulfil that public health strategy which Miss Anne Lapping, in the magazine New Society, described in 1967 as being:
how to stop people from wantonly falling victim to sicknesses like lung cancer, coronary thrombosis, V.D. or drug addiction.
Indeed, as she proclaimed in that same article:
The fastest spreading killers in advanced societies are diseases people can be taught to avoid.
The question is therefore how well the Health Education Council is now measuring up to that task. In attempting to estimate its work, I have to admit to being at the disadvantage of having only one annual report and what the Council describes as an interim report to rely on. I understand that another annual report is due in the very near future, but I cannot wait until that report and therefore if any statements I make are in accurate I apologise for the inaccuracies since I have no way of putting them right.
However, from the two reports I have mentioned, it is clear the Council is constrained by the size of its budget from tackling as it would wish the task it sees itself as having been allotted. After all, it is a national task.
However, on the basis that one must cut one's cloth according to one's cloth, I find it surprising that in its income and expenditure account for the year ended 31st March, 1970, it stated that it had spent £107,550 on a campaign about smoking and health; while only £9,463 on a dental health campaign; £2,846 on an anti-V.D. campaign; £2,078 on a food hygiene campaign; £878 on a cancer campaign; £763 on sex education and contraception; £563 on accident prevention; and £475 on child health. It spent nothing on campaigns about immunisation and vaccination.
I cannot help wondering whether that order of spending shows the right priorities. It seems incredible that the Council should wish to spend £107,000 on a campaign about smoking and health and only £878 on a cancer campaign, in view of the enormous amount already spent on smoking and health, and in view of the publicity it has received from so many services, I wonder whether it was wise to spend its money in the way it has rather than giving it a greater spread over the other subjects, all of which require expenditure, particularly such subjects as immunisation and vaccinations, which are surely two of the most effective means of maintaining the health of the community. In passing I notice the Council spent nothing on drug prevention, which I believe to be a serious threat to the health of the community. It does not even refer to the subject.
While I appreciate that it is up to the Council, and not me, to say how it should spend its money and what the priority for that expenditure should be. But from conversations I have had I have the impression that many medical officers of health do not feel that the Council is sufficiently in touch with them or understands their problems, and that generally there is a feeling that it spends too much money on researching subjects in which it is interested and not enough on getting out leaflets and posters for public consumption. Many of the leaflets and posters it produces, and particularly the posters, have had a mixed

reception. I think particularly of its sex education posters of Casanova and the pregnant man, which caused a good deal of distaste.
It has also had problems with its anti-V.D. campaign. That is how I became interested in its work. Comparatively recently I put down a Question to my hon. Friend the Minister about the incidence of V.D. in this country. The Question was seen by a national newspaper, which asked me the reason behind it. I stated that I wanted to persuade the Government to mount a national education campaign to make young people aware of the danger of the disease and how it was contracted, since gonorrhoea is now the second most infectious disease in the country, next only to measles. Its incidence, as shown by the figures my hon. Friend announced today, is increasing quite considerably, particularly among young people.
As a result of that statement being printed in a national newspaper, I received a letter from the Diocesan Council for Family and Social Welfare, Exeter, which said:
You may be interested to learn that the above Council has been involved in a publicity drive for the Health Education Council's posters on V.D., and its Executive passed the following resolution recently:
'The Executive Committee of the Diocesan Council for Family and Social Welfare is informed that some local authorities have displayed little enthusiasm for the Health Education Council's poster campaign, warning young people of the dangers of venereal disease.'
We understand that only 38 of the 64 County Councils and 11 of the 85 County Boroughs are displaying these posters.
I think these figures are serious because they show that county councils and county boroughs are not particularly concerned with or attracted by the posters produced by the Health Education Council. Therefore, one is forced to ask whether the fault lies with the H.E.C. or with the borough and county councils. It is too simple to suggest that the fault must necessarily lie with the H.E.C, but if it is seeking to produce posters which are aimed at nationwide circulation and it gets such a poor response, as these figures suggest, one wishes to know rather more why it has been so unsuccessful. Perhaps they suggest straight away that the H.E.C. has as big a job on its hands to win the support of local authorities as it has in getting


its message over to the public. On the other hand, I also received a letter from a church group in Belfast which is concerned about social problems. It too came after the newspaper report to which I have referred. It said:
With regard to venereal disease one difficulty is to obtain suitable posters. The Health Education Council posters appear to treat the matter too lightly; a course of treatment and everything will be all right. We need posters aimed at prevention. We would be grateful for help and advice.
That letter raises the same question as the previous one, namely whether the H.E.C. is really producing material required by local authorities and by other groups concerned about health within the community.
I do not suggest that these two letters or the comments I have made about medical officers of health and their views of the H.E.C. are in themselves definitive. Indeed, a handful of conversations and two letters do not constitute a body of evidence which is worth very much. But the fact that the House of Commons Library had to send out for the Council's annual report for 1969–70 when I asked for it suggests to me that the Council is not perhaps communicating even with those of us who should be informed about its activities as we might hope.
As one whose profession is public relations. I can only say that I am amazed that the Council got by during the year 1969–70 with spending only £127 on public relations and £13 on Press releases. I should have thought that if it was really to communicate in the way it must if it is to do the job, it could not do so on such paltry expenditure. I must also add that as a Member of Parliament, I am not aware of having received anything from it.
I do not wish to seem from these remarks to be denigrating the very real achievements of the Council. I appreciate that it has had to build itself up very nearly from scratch and that although it was launched in early 1968 it did not really get under way until early 1969. As I have said, it has been lucky to have had as its Chairman the noble ladies Lady Serota and, in particular. Lady Birk, whose untiring efforts have done so much to make it effective. But at a time when society is faced with health and population problems as often

as not caused by ignorance, it is clear that the work of the Council is of first importance in disseminating in a relevant and contemporary way the facts which can enable as many people as possible to live a full and healthy life.

2.45 a.m.

Mr. Michael Cocks: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Walthamstow, East (Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson) for giving us this opportunity to speak briefly about the work of the Health Education Council. He referred to the rather meagre budget it has and the need for greater expenditure. The whole tenor of his remarks about how the general public is in need of help and advice allows me to bring before the Minister tonight a particular aspect which is becoming of increasing public concern.
As a nation we are becoming more health conscious, and hand in hand with this there has been an increase in the number of advertisements for health insurance schemes. The Health Education Council can play a great part in enabling the public to arrive at an assessment as to what value they get from those schemes. I quote as an example an advertisement in the Sun newspaper on 15th November by the London and Edinburgh Insurance Company which had the heading:
These are the only exclusions",
which then goes on to list a number of conditions not covered by the policy.
Prompted by this, I put a Question to the Department of Health and Social Security which was answered by the Minister on 6th December. In his Answer the Minister showed that the things described in the advertisement as the only exclusion in fact accounted for over 50 per cent. of beds in National Health Service hospitals.
It seemed to me that the general public were not in possession of the medical statistics to enable them to make a realistic appraisal of advertisements of that sort. This is the sort of work which the Council could do. So misleading did I think the advertisement, that I wrote to the Chief Inspector of Weights and Measures in Bristol asking whether an advertisement couched in those terms was an infringement of the Trade Descriptions Act. He replied that


it was not. Frustrated in this direction, I then wrote to the Department of Trade and Industry drawing attention to the advertisement and received a courteous, but unhelpful reply that the Insurance Companies Act did not confer any power on the Department to control the methods by which insurance companies issued policies, but the Department went on helpfully to say that it was considering selling methods.
I turned to the Law Commission, which sent a letter in reply with a report, but suggested that I should contact the Advertising Standards Authority. I did so and received a reply to the effect that the average person in the street should be able to deal with this matter. It said:
We do not, however, think it unreasonable to assume that the average person is capable of assessing, from his own experience and that of his family and acquaintances, whether he is sufficiently likely to undergo hospitalisation for those conditions which the policy does not cover as to make it worth his while to invest in it.
This is where the Health Education Council could help. I do not think that what the Authority says is a fact. Prompted by the answer I received from the Authority, I put another Question to the Minister about the length of stay of various age groups in hospital: ages 0 to 17, 18 to 39 and so on. The Minister said that information in the form requested was not available. If the Minister has not got information in that form it is difficult to see how the general public can have any sort of idea of what are their chances of staying in hospital at a particular age. The Minister kindly gave me information in another form, for different age ranges. Even so there is a lack of information and there is a gap here which the Health Education Council could fill.
I put my dilemma to the statistical division in the Library to see whether we could arrive at some assessment of whether these schemes were worth investing in. The division gave me a full reply, listing a number of reasons why it was not possible for it to make any sort of realistic assessment of the schemes. These included:
The actual monthly premium paid depends on the age structure at enrolment of the family: this figure cannot be directly related to the expected average length of stay in hospital of any one member of the family; the monthly premium does not change when the members of the family move into different age groups;

the age groupings are not the same as those quoted in reply to the Parliamentary Question. In making the required calculation one would have to introduce a risk factor based on the chances of any member of the family being in hospital in any one year. One can say that the chances are 1 in 13·6 for those under 14 and 1 in 5·4 for those over 75, but the incorporation of such probabilities into the calculation is a job for an actuary.
One could not adequately take account of the provisions relating to accidents whereby £400 per month is paid when both husband and wife are in hospital together after an accident. …
Nor could one take account of the provision excluding the first two years of sickness of those who are already sick with a given condition at the time of taking out a policy.
For these reasons it was felt impossible to give any sort of realistic assessment as to whether the scheme offered value for money. There is a job here for the Health Education Council. I have gone to various sources to get something done about this. I asked the Secretary of State on 21st December whether he would seek powers to enable him to control the advertising of private health insurance policies and he replied "No."
In the absence of action by the State we need some sort of body such as the Council to provide this information to enable the public to know whether it is getting value for money. This is daily becoming more urgent.
In the Evening Standard of 8th February the following headline appeared over an advertisement:
With every passing year you know your chances of going into hospital are increasing all the time.
I asked the Secretary of State about the average length of stay in hospital and the Under-Secretary was kind enough to give me a very full answer on 6th December. From that it can be seen that it is not true that with every passing year one's chances of going into hospital are increasing. I referred this advertisement to the local Weights and Measures office under the Trade Descriptions Act, and again action was refused.
In the Committee considering the Local Government Bill I have raised the whole question of standardisation of decisions by Weights and Measures inspectors who are now being asked to make subjective judgments whereas before they made objective judgments, analysis of samples and so on. We should now be thinking in wider terms of what the Council can do.


I apologise for raising this matter without giving notice. I do not expect an answer tonight, but I should like the Under-Secretary of State to think about whether it is possible to assist the general public, who are being pummelled and bombarded by these schemes, to reach a rational judgment.

2.55 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Michael Alison): It is a matter of congratulation to my hon. Friend the Member for Waltham-stow, East (Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson) and the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Michael Cocks) that they should have the distinction of contributing to the first extended debate we have had on the Health Education Council.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): I remind the hon. Gentleman that he requires the leave of the House.

Mr. Alison: I apologise. For the second time of asking, I request leave to speak again.
The hon. Member for Bristol, South, used the phrase "a courteous but un-helpful reply" of an answer given in response to an inquiry he made. I trust that I shall retain my courtesy even at this late hour, but I hope he will allow me not to make a full reply to his points for the reason he himself forecast, namely, that he was not able to give notice of the points he intended to make. I assure him that we shall carefully read and note what appears in the Official Report, as no doubt will the members of the Health Education Council without having to be referred to it by my Department.
In turning to the helpful, well-informed and encouraging remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, East, it might be helpful if I filled in a little of the background of the Health Education Council. The Council was set up in 1968 to take over the health education functions of the then Ministry of Health and the Central Council for Health Education, following a recommendation by a Joint Committee of the Central and Scottish Health Services Councils that a national health education organisation should be established. The Council is financed from central and local government funds. My hon. Friend commented

on the financial aspect, and I shall come to this later. The Council is required to obtain the approval of the Secretary of State to its budget and programme of activity, but, in keeping with the recommendations of the Cohen Committee, not to the detailed ways in which it carries out its functions. The raison d'etre of this type of body is that it is wholly free to concentrate on health education without the possibility or the danger of its energies being diverted to other subjects. It is also likely that it will feel freer to experiment and try to break new ground than would a Government Department.
The Council's legal status is that of a limited liability company. The objects for which it is established are to promote and encourage in England and Wales and Northern Ireland education and research in the science and art of healthy living and the teaching of such living, and to assist Government Departments, local authorities and other statutory and voluntary bodies to pursue the same end. The Council has a valuable co-ordinating and disseminating rôle and a responsibility to give advice on the development of a professional approach to health education.
The Council's activities include the mounting of national campaigns and the use of research methods in planning such campaigns. The application of knowledge from the science of epidemiology, economics, and the communication and behavioural sciences is essential to planning. Its activities also include liaison with the Department of Education and Science, the Schools Council, Her Majesty's Inspectors of Schools, local education authorities and individual heads of schools with a view to developing an educational pattern for young people which will allow for more fundamentally healthy living in the future. Other activities include organising training courses for family doctors, local authority and hospital staff; producing publicity material, posters, leaflets—about which my hon. Friend had a word to say—films, and so on; and a library service.
The Council, through its Medical Research Division, carries out research into health education needs and the approaches and methods which are most likely to achieve maximum effectiveness. Within its resources, the Council must


necessarily plan its activities by allocating priorities on its own initiative and responsibility. These must be determined among areas of possible health activity. The areas of health education activity which are currently being given greatest priority are smoking and health, family planning and venereal disease.
The Council during its short life has established itself as a source of advice and help on health education matters to local and central government, to voluntary organisations and to the mass media. It has become a focal point for everyone involved with the planning and development of health education on a rational scientific basis.
The Council recognises that its objectives can be fully met only if all who are or should be involved in health education—for example, doctors, nurses, dentists, social workers, health visitors, midwives, and teachers—are properly educated and trained about the relevance and techniques of health education in their particular fields. The Council accepts a responsibility for stimulating the development of training facilities for these people, and during the last year in particular has been actively pursuing this policy by organising courses, regional seminars and other functions, by conducting a survey of local authorities to determine their views and requirements, by establishing contact with all medical schools in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, and by submiting evidence to the Committee on Nursing.
It is also in close touch with the Department of Education and Science and the Schools Council regarding health education in schools. In addition to all these activities, the Council continues to develop its training courses for health education staff of local authorities and voluntary bodies, partly with the aid of its mobile training unit which travels extensively throughout the country; it also publishes the quarterly "Health Education Journal" and half-yearly the "Health Information Digest", both of which disseminate views and information about the practice of health education.
My hon. Friend spent a good deal of time in his speech in dealing with the subject of venereal disease. The Council considers education about the dangers of sexually transmitted diseases to be one of its first and most important priorities.

The Council has conducted national poster campaigns aimed at informing young adults, the age-group at greatest risk, about sexually transmitted diseases and their treatment. The Council has also produced a leaflet which has been widely distributed among local authorities and elsewhere and features this topic prominently in talks, discussions and training courses which it organises.
Last November the Council drew the attention of local authorities to the increase in the incidence of gonorrhoea. The Council reminded them of the avail ability of posters and leaflets and asked for information about any successful approaches authorities had made to the problem. This resulted in some additional requests for posters and created interest in some areas; but unfortunately for a number of reasons many local authorities appear to be unenthusiastic about mounting public education campaigns on this subject.
There are many difficulties here, some of which my hon. Friend knows. Elected representatives and their officers may be apprehensive about appearing to condone loose sexual morals about sexually transmitted diseases, and educationists are understandably no less apprehensive. Indeed, it must be recognised that the subject is offensive to some people; my hon. Friend has knowledge of possible counter-productiveness in this regard in terms of hostility. Nevertheless, the Council's poster campaign has raised the whole level of discussion about sexually transmitted diseases. There has been a noticeable broadening of concern in young people's magazines; the Press and radio have given space and time to news and features about V.D., and television has produced some instructive programmes about the problem.
The Council has included the sum of £50,000 in its estimates for 1972/73 for V.D. health education and this amount has been set aside by my Department for this purpose. The Council is actively planning and experimental intensive health education and contact tracing campaign which will be held in two London boroughs, Lambeth and Wandsworth.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: May I ask my hon. Friend one other question? Will he also see that there are sufficient centres to which people can go? At present, we


are about at full stretch as regards treatment.

Mr. Alison: I take my hon. Friend's point. Certainly if I find that there is anything specific that I can give my hon. Friend, I shall drop him a line about it.
This contact tracing campaign is due to start shortly and to last at least a year. A research assistant has been carrying out the necessary preliminary work and a steering committee, which includes senior doctors from my Department and the local authorities, has been established.
The main aims of the campaign are to increase the proportion of contacts of patients with either gonorrhoea or early syphilis who are traced and persuaded to receive treatment at a special clinic, and to make the local communities more aware of the V.D. problem in their area and of their general responsibility to prevent the spread of these diseases.
Health education will be mainly directed at the sexually most active, that is those in the age group 18–24, and a variety of education methods will be used ranging from face-to-face interviews to publicity material in clinics and exhibitions open to the general public.
Extra welfare officers for contact tracing will be attached to St. Thomas' Hospital and other major clinics in the area. It is hoped that local family doctors will participate and have access to laboratory services and contact tracing teams.
The Council hopes that the campaign will demonstrate how contact tracing methods can be improved and throw some light on the question as to which groups should be subjected to the main health education effort.
The Council considers that it is necessay to give serious consideration to the drug problem. However, we recognise the need to tread warily before embarking on publicity on drug abuse. There are two basic reasons for this cautious approach. First, there are still gaps in our knowledge of the precise size and nature of the drug problem in Britain and secondly, and more importantly, there is a very real risk that ill-chosen educational methods might encourage an interest in drugs in people who had not previously felt it. Other Governments are also well aware of the dangers of

national campaigns and share the fear that this type of activity might be tantamount to advertising drug abuse. However, it does not necessarily follow that a carefully designed programme of public education could not have a valuable part to play in helping to combat the growing problems of drug abuse.
With this in view, the Government have sponsored a survey into public attitudes towards drug taking with the aim of finding a much firmer basis than has existed so far for assessing the full need for education about this subject. The survey has now been carried out and the draft report is currently being evaluated.
The Council features the topic of drug abuse prominently in its training courses and during recent years many local authorities have been actively engaged in promoting health education on drugs. A variety of methods has been used, for example, talks, discussions, film shows and pamphlets.
The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs held its first meeting on 7th January, when it decided, among other things, to explore the area of education and information to see whether it could contribute any advice to the Ministers concerned.
The Council and my Department are collaborating closely with the Department of Education and Science about education on the dangers of drug abuse, particularly in schools. As my hon. Friend will know, health education in schools is a matter which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science is weighing carefully.
Since its inception in 1968 the annual expenditure of the Health Education Council has increased from £163,000—some expenditure was also incurred in this year by the Central Council for Health Education and the Health Department—so it was not entirely the limit of the budget at that time—to an estimated £720,000 in the financial year 1971–72. A large part of this expenditure has been devoted to producing publicity material and mounting campaigns in areas considered to merit special priority, such as those which have been pinpointed tonight. For example, smoking and health expenditure increased from £28,000 in 1968–69 to more than £200,000 in 1971–72, V.D. expenditure


has increased from £4,000 in the base year to £22,000 in the last financial year, dental health from £1,000 to £18,000 and family planning from nil to £129,000 during the same period.
Local authorities' contributions to Health Education Council income have risen from £37,000 in 1968–69 to about £85,000 in the current financial year. Apart from a small income from the sale of some materials, the remainder of the Council's income is provided by my Department.
The total increase of about £128,000 in the Supplementary Estimates for the Council is almost wholly accounted for by the additional sum of £118,000 which was made available to the Council towards last Autumn's television campaign on smoking and health. It is our intention to make up to £½ million available for the financial year 1972–73 for smoking and health and provision has been made for this in the Council's budget estimates for 1972–73.
I make no apology to the House for giving some of these details in minute form, because I believe that it is the first chance we have had to give widespread publicity to the Council. I believe my hon. Friend will see from the figures of a dramatically escalating scale of expenditure that we take the Council, its scope and its importance seriously, and we demonstrate this in the most convincing and sincere form possible, namely, in terms of hard cash.

DEFENCE (PROCUREMENT EXECUTIVE)

3.13 a.m.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Why on earth anyone in his right mind should wish, at 3.15 in the morning, to raise the question of Class IV, Vote 5A, Subhead M, on the post-Apollo programme may cause speculation. I do so because I think that the Defence Procurement Executive and its colleagues are urgently faced with one of the major issues with which technology in the post-war world has been faced, namely, the question on which a decision is required before the summer of the post-Apollo programme and whether we participate with the United States in this programme. Indeed, I use the analogy of the mid-1950s, when the issue of the Treaty of Messina and

whether to sign it went undiscussed. The decision on post-Apollo could be a watershed.
I am grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry for being present to answer the debate, because I know that he has an important engagement in Brighton at the Oceanography Conference tomorrow at 10 a.m. Had his colleagues at the Ministry of Defence been as helpful as he normally is, there would have been no need for this debate, because the debate is conducted against the background of some mutual ill temper in the Defence Department which ill-becomes such a complex issue.
The Defence Ministers, when questions have been asked—in the defence debate, in the debate on the Air Estimates and in the debate on the Army Estimates—have not been forthcoming. Indeed, if it is said that it is not a matter for the Ministry of Defence, apart from anything else how is it that the Under-Secretary for Defence for the Royal Navy was the Minister chosen to visit Cape Kennedy this month? I think that the Defence Department has to bear some responsibility in this matter of keeping the Under-Secretary and his officials far into the night.
The decision must naturally come within the purview of the procurement agency because there are specific military considerations. Every nation recognises this—the Americans, the Russians and the Chinese. The post-Apollo decision is in danger of being lost in the British Government machine, and that is my central worry tonight. The decision is an orphan in the British Government machine.
Whereas I am happy to concede that most of the work of the procurement agency and the National Defence Industries Council is going well, and I am told by people that they are happy with the performance of the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Defence on N.D.I.C. and they are prepared to give credit to the Government in key positions in industry, the same people say that they are exasperated over the lack of a decision on the post-Apollo situation, a decision which we in Western Europe must communicate to the Americans by the summer. I do not think, if I may say so in parenthesis, that it is worth blaming or trying to blame our European


allies. The truth is that firms such as B.A.C. and Hawker Siddeley see this as a serious matter, and Sir Arnold Hall and Sir George Edwards have expensive skilled resources tied up at Kingston and Bristol waiting for some kind of decision.
The offer was first put about three years ago to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) when he was Minister of Technology. It is true that the Department has contributed to the cost of preliminary feasibility studies of a type which have been carried out by the European Space Conference and that British industry, with Government financial assistance, has collaborated with United States firms in feasibility studies on shuttle systems, but is the Under-Secretary of State satisfied that he has had sufficient discussions with the major firms involved in British industry, particularly B.A.C. and Hawker Siddeley?
Time is not on our side. Indeed, space agency procurement practices took a sharp turn last week with the decision to select a single contractor for development of the shuttle and to provide recoverable solid-fuelled booster stages as Government-furnished equipment. It looks as though the other side of the Atlantic, with a prime contractor, will get the largest part of the 5·1 billion dollars expected to be spent on shuttle development, and this contractor will be selected around 1st July for contract negotiation.
In those circumstances I do not think it is appropriate, during this kind of debate, to pass any kind of pontifical judgment upon whether Britain should participate, but it would be wrong if some statement were not made to the House on the issues involved and at least some clarification given of how the Government machine is setting about tackling this real problem.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): Order. I know that the hon. Member is in some difficulty and is trying to keep within the rules of order, but if he were to expand on the decision, as he has started to do, he would go beyond the scope of the debate and so, indeed, would the Minister in replying.

Mr. Dalyell: I do not want to abuse the rules of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I shall keep it short as I

intended. What specific jobs are the Ministry people who are working for the procurement agency doing if they are not giving their mind to the decision that I have raised tonight of post-Apollo?
I would ask the Minister to confirm that the visit of the American team under George Mansur, who I gather saw the Procurement Executive when it visited London in the second week of March, did not discuss the post-Apollo problems. Are we and the Procurement Executive negotiating with the Americans as an individual country, outside the context of E.S.R.O. and E.L.D.O.? To what extent is the Procurement Executive and those who have been taken on by it tying up with E.L.D.O., E.S.R.O. and European Governments under the chairmanship of M. Lefevre in giving some response to the American offer? Finally, are the Government happy that the American offer has been sufficiently clearly defined, so that we are giving the meaningful kind of answer that we should be giving?
I know that hon. Members should not abuse this rather narrow debate, but I think that what I have said falls within order and I hope that these questions can be answered by the Minister.

3.21 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. David Price): I thank the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) for his courteous references to myself.
This Supplementary Estimate, for £200,000, has arisen from increases in the pay of the staff and other running costs of the aviation establishments. It is simply to catch up with inflation. There has been no big increase in staff.
Although these establishments are run by the Ministry of Defence—the Procurement Executive—under the arrangements set out in the Rayner White Paper, they carry out work for us and we pay for it. As the total running costs have gone up the Ministry's contribution is obviously larger, because they do more for themselves than they do for us. No extra people are working in the Space Division of R.A.E. Farnborough, which is doing no direct project work on the post-Apollo programme. That is being done in E.S.R.O. and E.L.D.O. under the original


decision of the European Space Conference at the end of July, 1970. A total of £1 million was voted by the E.S.C. R.A.E. is a general adviser to the Government so we keep in close touch.
Since we last discussed the post-Apollo programme on 10th July, 1970, the Americans have reduced the scope, size and cost of their programme from 10 billion dollars to 5·15 billion. This programme has had presidential approval but has yet to go through Congress, and it is anyone's guess what shape it will be in when it leaves Congress.
What is relevant is the precise United States offer to Europe. The original offer was to the member States of the European Space Conference and separately to the United Kingdom, France and Germany and subsequently to Canada, Australia and Japan, inviting participation, preferably on a multilateral basis, in the total programme. No suggestions were made as to the type or extent of the participation. In subsequent discussions with the American authorities, the figure of 10 per cent. as the European share of the costs of the programme came to be regarded as a meaningful figure of involvement. The latest proposals envisage no particular percentage contribution, and they have been extended to include joint consideration of the applications of post-Apollo.
The programme is now seen as a fresh approach to space activities as a whole. However, I must make the point that in financial and resource terms Europe has not yet got a precise offer to which to respond, although the general shape is becoming clearer.
In the meantime, this year the Committee of Alternates of the E.S.C. considered a proposal for further studies additional to those voted in July, 1970. Briefly they consist of studies on tugs, space shuttle aerodynamic studies, supporting studies mainly concerned with the applications and operational use of the tug, earth orbital system studies and studies of payloads.
Certain countries, including France and Germany, agreed to fund this work at a total cost of some 3 million dollars. The United Kingdom abstained from a vote on this proposal pending further consideration by the Government. The Netherlands position was similar. Our contribution to these studies would be

of the order of £240,000. The Government are currently considering whether the United Kingdom should participate in these further studies. Clearly any participation would carry with it no contractual implication of commitment to any ultimate participation in the full programme.
The hon. Member for West Lothian mentioned Mr. Mansur's visit. I can assure him that this visit had no connection with the post-Apollo programme. His visit was directed entirely to explaining to European Governments, his Government's rethinking on the proposed joint aeronautical satellite. If I pursue that matter further, it would certainly be out with the scope of the Vote.

Mr. Dalyell: Will the hon. Gentleman tell me about the time-scale involved?

Mr. Price: My next note is on this point. The proposed studies, to be undertaken during 1972, will extend beyond the period at which the present N.A.S.A. timetable will require a positive European reaction. I think this is the point which the hon. Gentleman wanted. The position is that the American proposals do not envisage the funding of development work outside the United States. If, therefore, Europe wishes to undertake sub-contracting in the shuttle part of the programme, a decision by European Governments will be required by July on meeting the cost of such work done by European industry. Only £40 million worth of such work is available out of a £2,200 million programme.
Before accepting European sub-contractors for the shuttle work, N.A.S.A. would like to be assured that Europe will play a bigger part in the overall programme; for instance, in tug development, estimated cost £280 million; or of specialised payloads, with an estimated cost anything from £80 million to £200 million according to their type. If Europe is not prepared to take some of this work, N.A.S.A. claims that the additional management complications would not make it worth while sub-contracting some or all of the £40 million worth of work on the shuttle.
The European Space Conference secretariat, after discussions with the Americans, is aiming to arrive at a decision in July on participation in the shuttle and


an agreement in principle on participation in the shuttle and an agreement in principle on participation in either the tug or the payload development. The studies now proposed on the tug and payloads will not be completed by the middle of the year, but definitive arrangements for these parts of the system are not needed until early 1973. It seems unlikely that European countries would be able to do more in July than say that they would undertake development of tug or payloads if satisfactory arrangements could be worked out.

Mr. Dalyell: Would not there be some considerable disadvantage if the prime contractors were selected by midsummer? That is the danger.

Mr. Price: I did not go into the more American part of the programme because I felt that to do so would be to extend the patience of the Chair rather too far. However, the hon. Gentleman is substantially right in saying that this is basically an American programme in which Europe and ourselves have been invited to participate and even join, but obviously we in Europe would not have a dominant rôle.
The hon. Gentleman spoke of B.A.C. and H.S.D. in relation to space. He will be aware that both organisations have sub-contracts from two of the American prime contractors and have been carrying out feasibility studies on the shuttle. A decision on this aspect will be made by the Americans later in the year. In this work B.A.C. and H.S.D. have had some financial help from the Department, so that it is not true to say that they have been left out in the cold.
The hon. Gentleman will appreciate my difficulty in that I, too, have a problem in keeping in order. It is by no means clear that we should participate in the post-Apollo programme, even assuming that Europe can find a meaningful part in which to participate. After all, this is only one candidate among many long-term projects which may appeal. As I have said on previous occasions, we have the difficult problem of selection from over the whole spectrum of high technology projects, and without intelligent selection the cost to the taxpayer could be considerable, as I said on 10th July, 1970.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

Committee this day.

DORSET ROADS (LARGE VEHICLES)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Gray.]

3.31 a.m.

Mr. David James: I apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to the Deputy Whip, to the Minister and to all members of the staff for keeping the House at this hour.
This opportunity which I have to raise a subject of considerable importance, though not the major attraction that will take place later in the day, arises through my luck in the Ballot. I am disappointed, however, that some of my more distinguished hon. Friends are not in their places wearing top hats, ready for the Chancellor's Budget speech.
While this debate is directed at the problems of Dorset in general and of North Dorset in particular, it has a wider application for other rural communities because what concerns me is the way in which large vehicles are ruining the peace and quiet of the countryside.
There is no simple answer to this problem, because the police have always refused selectively to prevent large vehicles from using a particular road, and the farming community, by the employment of bulk carriers of grain and feeding stuffs, for the collection of milk and so on, would be equally hard hit if there were any general attempt to ban large vehicles.
That being the position, what can one do about it? I have five inter-related propositions to put forward. The first, which is self-evident, is the urgent need in the South-West of England for a trunk road linking Bristol and Southampton. If such a road existed, many of the points I wish to raise would not have risen.
Second, rural communities should be entitled to the protection of a speed limit if they so desire, irrespective of the present criteria, and that limit should not necessarily involve the sacred cow of the


30 m.p.h. restriction. At present it is 30 m.p.h. or nothing; take it or leave it.
Third—this is a minor but nevertheless important point—if vehicles are slowed down, drivers should be told why. I should like to see a traffic sign indicating that historic buildings are in the neighbourhood, rather like signs indicating schools and so on. Everybody recognises why such signs are posted and they help people to appreciate the need to exercise a degree of caution. Fourth, on narrow lanes there is urgent need for a single unbroken white line and, fifth, as a corollary I shall have something to say about double white lines on A class roads.
My first suggestion is the need for a north-south trunk road. This is so self-evident that I need say nothing to justify it. At present, what happens in Dorset—which I should mention lies south of Bristol, because most people do not know that—is that those lorries and heavy vehicles which want to come either from the industrial Midlands, South Wales or Bristol have the choice of three routes.
The first route is the A350 through Warminster down to Shaftesbury. After Shaftesbury it meanders its way through delightful Dorset villages, the names of which are music to anyone's ears—Melbury Abbas, Compton Abbas, Iwerne Minster and Stourpaine—down to Blandford. The second possibility open to them is to take the A357 from Wincanton, which goes through Stallbridge, Sturminster Newton, Okeford Fitzpaine, and Durweston and joins up with the other road. The third option open to these vehicles is to take a minor road, the B3061, which goes through Gillingham, East Stour, Todber—where I was very nearly forced off the road and into the ditch by a heavy lorry on my way to the House this morning—Manston, Childe Okeford and Steepleton. Those are the routes which hundreds of heavy lorries have to take in present circumstances.
I make no apology for raising the particular position of Childe Okeford, partly because it happens to be the village in which I live and naturally I am more aware of its problems than those of other places, but partly because it typifies the difficult situation in which we now find ourselves. Childe Okeford has been inhabited for about 4,000 years, if one includes the Iron Age settlement on the

hill immediately overlooking the village. It has a great history. It was besieged by Charles I and by Cromwell. General Wolfe taught his troops to scale the heights of Quebec on the hill immediately behind the village, Hamilton Hill.
It is not generally recognised that the first public rendering of "Onward Christian Soldiers" was performed in the parish church because Arthur Sullivan had friends in the village.
I hope that that is an indication of the sort of little community we are discussing, a straggling village along 1·2 miles of road. Until the end of the war the main street was not paved. There was one of those delightful watercourses across the road which as schoolboys we all loved splashing through on our bicycles. That was Childe Okeford 25 years ago. Apart from a few housing estates bringing up the population, it has not increased all that much since then.
But what is happening now? Day after day and night after night there is a thunder of heavy vehicles along this road which is utterly incapable of taking them. A group of local vigilantes—I shall not pretend that I laid this on, but I did not impede it—has been conducting private surveys in the last few weeks. Between 6 a.m. and 6 p.m. on 31st January, 12 retired people working in rotation counted 863 vehicles going, in almost equal proportions, north and south through the village, of which 91 were heavy. On 29th February the number had risen to 1,150, with the same proportion.
It is impossible for a village of this size to accommodate this type of vehicle. Already the absurd situation has been reached where if by any chance two of them meet between historic buildings there is no option but for one of them to stop, reverse and find a farm yard gate or a lay-by to let the other one through. As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will know from my letter to him which included details of this matter, twice recently heavy lorries have been forced off the road just by Handford, just a few hundred yards from the village. One of the lorries was a 30-tonner which ended up within a few feet of the lodge gates of Handford School.
Having accepted that these heavy vehicles cannot be kept off the road, we want to discourage them and to give the people who live in the village some sense


of security with this traffic thundering through. Quite clearly a speed limit is required, and they want a speed limit of 30 miles per hour. The Ministry have an ingenious device known as the 85 per centile which assumes that 85 per cent. of everyone who drives is sensible and the other 15 per cent. are fools. Therefore, what happens to the 85 per cent. is regarded as being sensible. As the 85 per centile is 27 m.p.h. that is not going to be much good to Childe Okeford. Therefore I would like my hon. Friend to bring in a 20 m.p.h. limit for villages in this category to discourage vehicles which do not need to use that road as a matter of course.
Speed limits can be enforced by a police trap once a month, and such a speed limit would give reasonable safety to life and limb for the people who live in the villages who walk along this un-lighted, unpavemented type of causeway.
There are precedents for this type of speed limit. The national parks already have 20 m.p.h. speed limits and have had for many years. Road works have a 10 m.p.h. speed limit and non-mandatory road signs, the sort which say "Go Slow" on bends, are marked in 5 m.p.h. graduations.
In America in many states, I recollect particularly when I was motoring in Colorado a year or two ago, traffic is slowed in 5 m.p.h. stages, all the way from 70 to 15 m.p.h. in many cases. In Europe it is done in 10 kilometre steps which is nearer to 5 m.p.h. than 10 m.p.h. I do not believe there is a mystique in the 30 m.p.h. limit when possibly in the interests of everyone concerned it could be 25, 20 or even 15 m.p.h.
There should also be a sign showing why drivers should go slowly past historic buildings, and this applies particularly in the historic town of Wimborne where gorgeous Georgian buildings are being shaken to bits. While all drivers are good at recognising a blind corner, very few of them realise that a hill crest is as blind as a corner, and many accidents are caused by overtaking on crests.
We have a good system of double white lines on A class trunk roads and by and large the rule is amazingly well-observed. Everyone knows it is the kiss of death to transgress the double white

line. But this cannot be put down on an 18 ft. road, because there is insufficient room for white lines and two vehicles. On minor roads I should like to see a single unbroken white line as mandatory for non-passing as the double white line.
I draw my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary's attention to Gains Cross on the A357 between Okeford Fitzpaine and Durweston. It is merely a matter of time before there is an accident at this point and I cannot for the life of me see why motorists should be regarded as being so bemused that they cannot regard a single unbroken white line as being as valid as a double unbroken white line.
If my hon. Friend does not accept this argument why does he not accept the continental remedy and opt for the single line throughout? We shall have more and more continental motorists on our roads. More and more of our motorists will motor on the Continent. There is much to be said for uniformity in the matter. But the essence is that the unbroken white line is the one thing the motorist does not cross, or where he passes another vehicle under literal pain of death.
I have a final small point that struck home to me very forcibly because I nearly made a bad mistake only two weeks ago. Even on an A-class road like theA30 from Salisbury to Blandford, the combination of long modern lorries and low sports cars is such that there are many hidden dangers. A small car coming towards another motorist can be absolutely hidden from view. I rarely take the car to London, but I had to do so two weeks ago. I was coming back from London when I was very nearly killed on the slope down to Tarrant Hinton on the A350. It is quite a long way down the slope. There was a big lorry in front of me. It was only instinct and native caution that prevented my pulling out. There was a little sports car tucked away, and if I had tried to pass that big brute of a lorry I should had had a head-on collision.
I hope that the entire no-passing system in hilly country will be reviewed to take into account the long lorry and the small sports car, so that everyone knows that if there is a broken line it is safe to pass and that if there is


an unbroken line or lines he passes at his own peril and that of his fellow human beings.
I have taken up almost exactly half the time for the debate, and I will not take up more. I have detected a certain reluctance by the Department to take seriously all these inter-linked and associated propositions up to now. It would do an immense amount both for safety on the roads and the preservation of the countryside if they were examined carefully, particularly as they have the private endorsement of everyone concerned within my local authority.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Eldon Griffiths): My hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North (Mr. David James) has characteristically deployed the anxieties of his constituents very eloquently, even though at a late hour.
My Department does take seriously the mix of factors my hon. Friend has described. There is not only the impact of the lorry, the motor car, the signs, the white lines on the environment and amenity of people; there is the concern we all have for road safety, which is the principal consideration in my hon. Friend's mind and mine.
My hon. Friend is fortunate to represent so beautiful a part of the country, an area I know well, and one which I can appreciate the concern, exasperation and even anger that people must feel when they see the large heavy lorry, with its noise, its smoke, its vibration, impacting on that most delightful part of the country. My own part of the country, in East Anglia, is similarly disadvantaged through the heavy lorries making their way from the North Sea ports to the industrial areas, so I fully understand and sympathise with the constituents whom my hon. Friend has so forcefully represented tonight.
As my hon. Friend said, there is no easy answer to the problems of goods traffic which has its origin and destination in the district. There is not only the problem of the through traffic which we all recognise, but there is the difficulty of the local factory which needs to take in raw materials and dispatch its products; the quarry from which the road stone must be cleared; the deliveries to local establishments; and, increasingly,

the movement to and from farms of milk in bulk tankers and grain, feeding stuffs, fertilisers and so on. Since these are essential goods, any increase in the cost of their movement would necessarily be reflected directly in the cost of living.
On the other hand, I must say on behalf of my Department that we are already doing a great deal to reduce the nuisance caused by heavy vehicles and also to provide long-distance traffic with better routes. In the first place, we seek to act on the lorry itself, to civilise it by regulating its noise limits and putting restrictions on its exhaust, its weight and its size. In our road programme, we are now pressing very hard for improved inter-urban routes which will attract large lorries to the large road, the by-passes and the road improvements and so on, particularly seeking to by-pass the historic towns.
My hon. Friend particularly drew attention to three roads which pass through his constituency and I think at the back of his mind he perhaps had the idea that rather more should be spent and a bigger effort made to provide a north-south road in that area. I can tell him that it is for the local authority in the area, if it wishes, to put forward proposals for this and that most certainly we would look at such proposals.
My hon. Friend's main point, at the beginning at least, concerned the heavy lorry, and I must tell him that the local authority has ample powers to ban whole classes of vehicles from roads—for example, by placing weight or size restrictions on particular roads. In order to do it it must have grounds of either preventing danger or that the class of vehicle in question is unsuitable for the road—that it needs to ban it to preserve the road or adjoining buildings or even for the sake of amenity. It is a matter for its own local judgment and discretion. No national policy is involved.
But, of course, there is always the problem that in country areas in particular one has to deal also with farm vehicles and there must always be a suitable alternative route if one is to ban particular vehicles from one road, and in the countryside that is not always possible. So the local authority is often up against it, no matter how anxious it is to act. No change in the law is required to help it in this matter.
My hon. Friend, in correspondence, has mentioned to me the question of Melbury Abbas. I do not propose to deal with it in detail, as he did not make it one of his main points, but perhaps I should say simply that I am informed that this route is a relatively good one. It is, indeed, an old Roman road, much used by through traffic. I understand that the county council considered putting a weight restriction on the stretch between Melbury Abbas and Blandford under the powers I have referred to but decided against it because it would have interfered with farm traffic and because, after taking a traffic census two years ago, it obtained the names of the main employers of the lorry traffic and wrote to them appealing for their co-operation in avoiding this road.
I commend the local authority on its initiative in seeking voluntary co-operation in this way. I understand that the majority of employers were very sympathetic and that there was a substantial reduction in traffic. One must also accept that the effects of this are now wearing off, that drivers are continuing to use the road, but I am informed that the council is considering a further appeal to them. If this does not work, no doubt it will have to consider again whether it should make use of the power of banning I have already mentioned.
My hon. Friend and I have spoken on speed limits on a number of occasions. He will appreciate that my Department's policy is that to be effective they must be realistic. To be recognised they must make sense to the majority of drivers. It is a plain matter of experience that if they are not satisfied that a speed limit is reasonable and realistic they will ignore it. If the majority ignore it, enforcement becomes impossible. The consequence of a whole proliferation of ill-observed limits over the whole country would bring the system into disrepute. That is why my Department has laid down criteria for limits at various levels. They include the 85 percentile speed, the accident rate and also the character and environment of the road.

Mr. David James: Does my hon. Friend agree that the accident rate is a matter of locking the stable door after the horse has bolted?

Mr. Griffiths: No, I do not think so. One has to make an objective measure and that is one which in my experience I have found will be most effective. The criteria recognise that villages need special consideration. I do not think this is appreciated in the country as much as it should be.
Departmental circulars specifically provide that along with the 85 per centile speeds, there could be some relaxation of accident criteria in villages. The argument for realism and physical characteristics of the road can keep down the speed. Nevertheless, it is possible to vary the criteria in the case of villages with special problems. I was grateful for my hon. Friend's description of Child Okeford with its 4.000 year history and the references to Wolfe training his troops there and to Arthur Sullivan writing "Onward Christian Soldiers" there.
I appreciate that people in such a village are fed up with noise and vibration caused by heavy lorries and traffic generally. It is an intrusion into people's lives, but on the other hand there is the necessity for the economic well-being of the country. I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that it is necessary to keep a sense of proportion and perspective in comparison with other parts of the country. He was very kind to let me see the informal traffic census completed by public spirited constituents. My Department will take it most carefully into consideration, but a total north and south of under 1,000 vehicles a day is not by modern standards in comparison with the rest of the country a very high volume. Compared with the majority of communities these are very low figures. Other villages in East Anglia, the West Country and elsewhere would welcome a reduction to those figures. Unfortunately, if we were to reduce the figures to those of Child Okeford the only way would be to provide an endless number of by-passes throughout the countryside.
My hon. Friend said that his constituents wanted a 30 m.p.h. speed limit and he thought there was a case for a 20 m.p.h. limit. It is the task of the county council to interpret what speed limits are required on these minor roads. I stress again that they have extra discretion in the case of villages. The county council must take into account the volume of traffic and other criteria.
I understand that my hon. Friend has discussed the matter with the county surveyor and my Department's regional controller. The regional controller has indicated informally that he would raise no objection to a speed limit, but the final decision must rest with the county surveyor and the county council. If they put forward such a suggestion my Department would not stand in the way. I do not think we could agree to a 20 m.p.h. limit; I think the appropriate limit would be 30 m.p.h.
I turn to the question of white lines. My hon. Friend was very eloquent on the subject of crest-line overtaking, which is a problem that can arise—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Monday evening, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. Deputy Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at one minute past Four o'clock.